The High Court · 2025

3. B. Sriram, S/o Late B. Siddaramulu, Age 14 years, Occ Stud:rrt

4. B. Durgamma Wo late Lingaiah, age 55 years, Occ: House rold (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minor and are being Representec by their Mother and Natural Guardian B. Swarupa i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) All are N/o H No.1-1-7811 , Fathe Nagar, MedakTown, Medak Drstrict Presently Residing at H.No.17-445, l.N. Nagar, Tukaram gate, Secunderab,rd .. Petitioners No.1 to 4/Respondent Nos.1 to 4/[)etrtroners No.1 to 4 AND

1. IFFCO TOKIO General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Represented by rts Manager (Legal)' Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad, Telangana. ...Appella rURespondent No 3 -f.

5. N. Mallesh @ N. Mallesham Goud, S/o Raja Goud, Age 45 years, Occ Business, .... Respondent No.S/Respondent No.1 RJo Kistapur Village, Kolcharam Mandal, Medak District

6. Narsimlu Seetapati @ S. Narsimlu, S/o Narayana, Age 50 years, Occ Business, , R/o H.No.6-39, Timmakpally Village, Rajupally, Kowdipa{ly, Medak. .... Respondent No.6/Respondent No.2 (Respondent No.S and 6 are not necessary parties to this petition) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the conditional stay orders passed by this Honourable court in LA.No. 3 ol 2O2O in MACMA No. 10 of 2020 passed on 09lO1l202O. Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4: SRINIVAS MALLAREDOYPET Counsel for the Respondents No.S : The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NAND'IKONDA M.A.c.M. A.NO.1ooF 2o.2o MENT: This appeal has been Preferred by the appell:rnt-IFFCO TOKIO General lnsurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the Award and decree' dated 25'O') 2Ol9 in M.V,O.P.No.265 of 2OL7 passed by the learned 'trharrman' Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xxvll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short' 'the TribunalJ.

2. For the sake of convenience' r-hLe parttes hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on'):O'O2'2O17 ' the deceased-tl.Siddiramulu (hereinafter referrerl to' as 'the deceased') started from his house situated at Nledak on a motorcycle bearing No'AP-28-P-5144 in orde r to go to Shankarampet Village for his Personal work and when he reached outskirts of Rajpally timits' at about 12:00 Noon' the driver o[ Car bearing No'AP-09-BB-0171 namr:l'r N.Ma]lesh Goud drove the same in a rash and negligent nranner with 2 NNR,J Macma l0 2020 high speed coming in the same direction and hit the motorcycle of the deceased from rear side, as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the vehicle and the offending vehicle ran over him. As a result of which, the deceased received severe bleeding injuries all over the body and died on the spot. Petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are sons and petition€r No,4 is mother of the deceased.

4. Prior to tJle accident, the deceased used to work as an Advocate Clerk and used to ea-rrl an amolrnt of Rs. 12,OOO/- per month. Besides that he also used to iron the clothes from S:OOAM to 8:30 AM and used to earn an arnount of Rs.8,OOO/- per month and the entire amount contributed for welfare of his family members. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners were put to mental shock and agony. The deceased was only earning member in the entire family and the petitioners are not having any other source of income to maintain themselves. A case in Crime No.25 of 2Ol7 was also registered by the police Medak Town under Section 3O4-A of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that respondent No.1 ls owner- -'::r { 3 NN&J Macma l0 2020 cum-driver, respondent No.2 is previous registere,l owner and respondent No.3 is insurer of offending vehicle, ets such all the respondents are jointly and severally liatle to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. Respondent Nos.l and 2 remained ex pq7'1, before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 frled counter-affrdavit denying the averments made in the claim petition and he eLdmits that respondent No. 2, offending vehicle bearing No.AP- 09-BB-O 1 7 1 is covered by insurance policy cover note for the trreriod from 25.05.2016 to 24.05.2017 and it is in possession of the insured. The person driving the offending veh ir:le has no relation in force as on the date of accident to drive t]le vehicle, as such respondent No.3 is not liable to pay com.c,:nsation to the petitioners. It is further stated that t e,e rider of motorcycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negli5lent manner and caused the accident, as such respondent l[o.3 is not liable to pay arly compensation to the petitioners ,and hence, he prays to dismiss the O.P.

6. On the basis of above pleadings, tn,e Tribunal framed the folloning issues for trial: 4 NNR,J Macma l0 2020 "1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash ald negligent driving of Car bearing No.AP-09-BB-O171 ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, from whom and what quantum of amount?

3. To what relieP"

7. After due enquiry arrd taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A. 1 to A. 15 and on behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced except marking of Ex.B. 1, the Tribunal carne to the conclusion that ttre said accident has occurred due to rash and negtgent driving of driver of offending vehicle and allowed the appeal granting compensation of Rs.24,78,OOO/- with interest @7.5o/o per annum to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by awarding of said compensation, the appellant-insurarce company filed the present appeal.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- insurance company contended that the petitioners have not filed ID proof of the deceased to show that he is working as an Advocate Clerk under P.W.3 and in the absence of hling of any proof, the Tribunal ought not to have taken income of the 5 NN&J Macma l0 2020 deceased at Rs.12,OOO/- per month instead of taking notional income of the deceased. He furflrer submitted thet as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court irr No,tTondl Insurance Compang Limited v. Pranag Sethi <ttr,d othersl the maximum amount that can be awarded under the head of 'I,{on Pecuniary damages is only Rs.7O,OOO/,- but l:he Tribunal erroneously awarded arr amount of Rs.2,1O,OO0/-; that the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.24,7[i,')O0/- with interest @7.5o/r, per annum against the claim amount of Rs.2O,OO,OOO/-, which is erroneous and hence, tLe prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugne<t award the decree. g- Though notice served on behalf of respondent Nos' I to 4 arrd Sri Srinivas Rao Mallareddy 'o'31' Iearned counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos'1 to 4, there is no representation on behalf of responc'ent Nos. 1 to 4 so also notice served on behalf o[ respondent llo.5, there is no representatron on his behalf. Respondent No.6 was set ex parte before the Tribunal itself. L zott (3) L.s. 44 (s.c) 6 NNR.J Macma I0 2020

10. Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learnpd Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insur€rnce Company. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record.

11. Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether tlrc appellant-Insurance comPang has made out ang ground to interfete uith the anuard. pa.ssed bg the T'ribunal? L2. POINT: As seen from the record, the accident is not in dispute. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the Tribunal instead of taking notional income of the deceased, it has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. |2,OOO/- per month. The Tribunal after considering the evidence P.W. 1 i.e., wife of the deceased and P.W.3 under whom the deceased worked as Driver-cum- Advocate Clerk for more than 10 years and drawn monthly salary of Rs.12,OOO/- and Ex.A8 -Satary certificate issued by P.W.3, fixed the monthly salary of ttre deceased at Rs.12,OOO/-. Besides the said job, the deceased also used to get an arnount of Rs.8,OOO/- by irorring'the clothes. But, the same was not accepted by the Tribunal as no documentary 7 NNR.J Macma t0 2020 evidence was produced. Further, as per the juclg;ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's (supr:rl 4Oo/o of the income added to the income of the deceased to calculate the future prospectus of the deceased and after doi.r;g the same, the same has come to Rs. 16,80O/- (Rs. |2,OOO/ x 4OVol and the yearly income would come to Rs.2,01,600/- (l?s. 16,800 x 12 months). As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Clorporation and another2 since the deceased is having four- dependents the Tribunal deducted 1/4tt' towards personal exc,:nses of the deceased and also taken the multiplier '15' corrr;idering the age of the deceased Thus, the petitioners were granted an amount of Rs.22,6O0O/- towards 'loss of dependency.' Further, the Tribunal also granted an amount ol 1ts.80,000/- towards Spousal and Parental Consortium; an amount of Rs. 15,OOO/- towards 'Loss o[ Estate'; an amount of Rs. 15,OOO/- towards 'Funeral Expenses'; and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards 'Love and Affection'. Thur;, in all the Tribunal awarded arr amount of Rs.24,7 8,,000/- compensation to the petitioners-claimants. 'z 1zoos1 ecc zoa sc 8 NNRJ Macma l0 20)L

13. Considering the facts artd circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.12,OOO l- per month considering the evidence of P.W. I and Ex.A.8 salary certificate. Therefore, this Court does not find any error committed by the Tribunal in taking the income of the deceased. The further contention of learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the amount more than the claim made by the petitioners.

74. It is settled law t-hat in case of Nagappa a Guntdagal Singh & Orse the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: oThere is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the arnount claimed by the claimant. In appropriate case, u,here from tfre eviderrce brought on record, if the tribunal/court considered that ttre daimant is entitted to get more compensation thal claimed, the tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is that it shoutd be'just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference tn the televant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident .. ., 3 nIR 2003 supreme court 674 9 NNR,J Macma t0 2020 involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any 6,r6ps6y of a third party so arising, or both, could be made a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by tJle owner of tJ e propert5r; or (c) where death has resulted lrom the accident; by all or any of the legal representativ:sr of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representativt:s of the deceased, as the case may be-"

15. On overall consideration of.oral and d ocumentar5i evidence of the petitioners-claimants, this Court feels that there is no error committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation of Rs.24,78,000/-, as such there Ls nothing for this Court to interfere with the said hnding. 'I'l^erefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed conhrming the Award and decree, dated 25.09.2019 tn M.V.tf .P.No.265 of 2017 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xxvll Additional Chief Ju,113e, City civil Court, Secunderabad. The appellant-insurance i:; directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners claimar.ts as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal and the tirr e specified in l0 NN&J Macana l0 2020 the order passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER '1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDYAdvocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. SRINIVAS MALLAREDDYPET Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL W HIGH COURT DATED:17l0412025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.10 of 2O2O '\'r ,' ST*.ll'1: 0t c ) ?rtt1 N6 () * t "rgi'# DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS iir. ,.1 \a; L IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT [ 3443 ] THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 10 OF 2020 Between: IFFCO fOKIO General lnsuranoe Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager (Legal), Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad, Telangana. AND ...AppellanURespondent No.3

1. B. Swarupa, W/o Late B. Siddaramulu, Age 32 years, Occ Housewife,

2. B. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Late B. Siddaramulu, Age 16 years, Occ Student

3. B. Sriram, S/o Late B. Siddaramulu, Age '14 years, Occ Student

4. B. Durgamma Wo. late Lingaiah, age 55 years, Occ: Household (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minor and are being Represented by their Mother and Natural Guardian B. Swarupa i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) All are N/o H.No.1-1-7811, Fathe Nagar, Medak Town, Medak District, Presently Residing at H.No.17445, l.N. Nagar, Tukaram gate, Secunderabad. .. Respondent Nos.l to 4/Petitioners

5. N. lilallesh @ N. Mallesham Goud, S/o Raja Goud, Age 45 years, Occ Business, R/o Kistapur Village, Kolcharam Mandal, Medak District .... Respondent No.S/Respondent No.'1

6. Narsimlu Seetapati @ S. Narsimlu, S/o Narayana, Age 5O years, Occ Business, R/o H.No.6-39, Timmakpally Village, Rajupally, Kowdipally, Medak. .... Respondent No.6/Respondent No.2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Order and Decree dated 07.08.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.265 of 2O17 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Clairns Tribunal-cum-XXVll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon peru sing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and ttre material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus appeal is; hereby dismissed confirming the Award and decree, dated 25.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.265 of 2017 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidr>rrts Claims Tribunal- cum-fiVll Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Secr nderabad.

2. That the appellant-insurance is hereby directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners-claimants as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal and the time specified in the order passed by the Tribunal.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. lff rue Copyll SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR t. i"--.- ---- SE}rION oFFIcER ' To City Civil Court, Secunderabad

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVIl Addilional Chief Judge, 2. Twq CD Copies. GE W HIGH COURT ,DATED:17l0412025 DECREE MACMA.No.10 ot 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS l \ i)1