The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the oi cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rray be pteased To vacate the interim stay granted by this Hon'ble court in MA(l vlA.Mp. No.5718/1 3 in MACMASR.o 41363/13. dt. 1111112013. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(MACMAMP. NO: 5718 OF 2013) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the <:i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Crrr rt may be pleased stay all further proceedings in M.A.T.O.P.No.74412010 on tr: file of the MACT- cum-ll Addl Dist Judge, Khammam dt.08-03-2013, pendi g disposal of the above M.A C.tvl A. Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. S.A.V. RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2 : SRl. KOWTURU VlNt yA KUMAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT r THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A YARA M.A.C.M.A. No. 762 of2o23 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Iearned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos. I and 2.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant insurance company, aggrieved by the order dated 14 'O2'2O23 in M.V.O.P.No.474 of 2Ol8 on the hle of IX Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein compensation of Rs.19,24,4OO/- with interest at 9o/o per annum was awarded against the claim petition lited seeking. compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein/claimants'

3. The claim petition was hled on account of death of one Mohd. Afroz Afridi in a road trafhc accidenl on 29'll'2O17 at about 12:30 AM near Parwathnagar junction, when the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider was struck by DCM van bearing No.AP O3 U 5589, which was driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No'3 herein' I \ 2 RY. J 'r \cMA 162 2021 Upon examining the oral and documentary evi'l rnce of claim 4 petitioners through P'Ws' I to 4 ald Exs'A- I t ) A- 13 and respondent No.3/appellant through R'W' 1 and Exs ll 1 to B-5' the Tribunalaw-ardedanamountofRs.Ig,24,4ool..lithinterest Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferrrr I

5. The appellant canvassed two grounds for c: lllenging the impugned order. One is the failure on the part of r1 e Tribuna-l to consider the driving license violation arrd the secotl i is quantum of compensation awarded, more particularly by tril< ng income of the deceased at Rs.12,OOO/- per month, when .he I 'as a student aged about 18 years as on the date of the accident'

6.Aperusaloftherecordshowsthatthedriverrltheoffending vehicle i.e., respondent No.3 herein was charged " nder Sections 304Aand33TofthelndianPenalCode,1860anlhewasalso charged under Section 181 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for driving a heavy vehicle without valid and effective dr ving license.

7. The appeltant herein has lead both oral anc documcnta4l evidence b5'examining R.W.1 and marking Exs'B-'l o B-5 to prove the driving license violation. I -) RY. .I MACIVIA 762 l0ll

8. Ex.A-2 i.e., certified copy of the charge sheet prima facie establishes the driving license violation and Ex.A-S i.e., Motor Vehicle Inspector report establishes that driving license was not produced. These facts have not been considered by the Tribunal ald therefore, the impugned order was passed fixing joint and severa-l liability on the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein.

9. In view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellar-rt, since there is driving license violation and since there is a valid insurance policy in force as on the date of the accident, as per the lega1 ratio laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singhr, the appellantr i,* directed to pay the compensation at the first instance and then recover the same from respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle.

10. Coming to the aspect of the quantum of compensation awarded, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the deceased was student aged about 18 years. P.W.3 is examined to prove the income and Ex.A-9 i.e., salary certificate is marked. The ' 2oo4 (3) scc 297 4 RY. J MACMA ]62 2023 Tribunai disbelieved Ex.A-9, which shows the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and consicle. ed the same at Rs. 12,OO0/- per month as a DJ Operator. T: : poiice record establishes the fact that the deceased was a st rdent, who got admitted into Engineering course (Aeronautice t Engineering). However, the documentaqr evidence marked und,r ' Ex.A-g and A- 11 raise serious doubt on the genuineness of th€ rral evidence of P.W.3 as Ex.A-9 is salary certificate issued on tr r letter head of Rangeela Events allegedly engaged 1n Pro-ligh s, Sound and Decorations. Whereas, Ex.A- 1 1 is certificate of re6 istration issued by the Labour Department, Government of TekL rgarra, showing registration of Rangeela Function Palace engaged n the business of function palace. Further, one Arshiya Sultana is shown to be the employer/owner of the function palace. Sinc:t there is doubt about genuineness of evidence of P.W.3 and lenuineness of Ex.A-9 salary certificate, the said evidence carnc - be taken into consideration.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstan( 3s of the case, Rs. 10,000/- is taken as notional income of the de,: :ased, who died in the year 2Ol7 and was an engineering student. t 5 RY. J MACMA 16) 7023

12. AccorCingly, the loss of source of income is calculated, the annual income comes to Rs. l,2O,OOO/- i.e., Rs. l0,OOO/_ per month X 12. Wh,en 4Oo/" is added to the same towards future prospectus as per National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethiz, the income comes to Rs.l,6g,OOO/_ (Rs. l,2O,O0O/, + 48,OOO/- [4O% of Rs.1,20,000/-]). The said amount is multiplied with i8 multiplier and the amount comes to Rs.30,24,000/- (Rs. 1,68,000/- X tS). The deceased being bachelor out of the said amount 5O% is deducted towards persona-l expenses, then the total amount comes to Rs. 15, l2,OOo/- (Rs.3o,2a,ooo / - / 2).

13. Learned counsel for the claim petitioners/resfondent Nos. I and 2 requested to the enhance the parental consortium of Rs.4O,OOO/, each granted by the Tribunal by lOoh, which comes to Rs.48,0OO/- each. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are also entitled Rs,30,O0O/ - towards funeral expenses and ioss of estate. After adding the same, the total amount comes to Rs. 16,38,000/- (Rs. 15,12,OO0/- * +A,OOO + 48,OOO + 3O,0O0). \ 'lzotz'1 ro scc oso 6 RY. J T4AC MA 162 2023

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed t'1 granting the order of pay and recovery and also by reducing th: compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs.19,24,4OO1- to Il s.16,38'000/- along with the interest as granted by the Tribunal There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications 1r :nding, if aly, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAL I) :PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \\ t"r,o* oFFrcER To, I District Judge, Khammam.

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunba - :um-ll Additional 2. One CC to SRl. S.A.V. RATNAM, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. KOWTURU VINAYA KUI\iIAR, Advocate OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies GE HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 1H= ,c ( ) a. I1],? \ ); / 2 ..\ +:.'./ \<<) ', tt' JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1785 ol 2014 \l 1 6 t\ k ..=?tsr -r-. DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \0 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3443 ] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1785 OF 2014 Between: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, Rep Hotavari Street, lnnispeta, Rajahmundry, E.G by its Branch Manager, H.No 6-10-3, Dist. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND

1. CHAKKA POTTIREDDY AND 3 OTHERS, S/o Late Malla Reddy, R/o Jaderu Village, Ganga Varam Village, Gangavaram Mandal, E.G.Dist.

2. Chakka Bullamma, Wo Potti Reddy, R/o Jaderu Village, Ganga Varam Village, Gangavaram Mandal, E.G. Dist. .. . Respondents/C laimants

3. Chittoju Gangaraju, S/o Ramulu, Occ - Driver, R/o Kovvelapalem Village, Gangavaram Mandal, E.G.Dist.

4. Kola Venkataraju, S/o Narasimharaju, Occ - Contractor, R/o Vemagiri Village, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G.Dist. ...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS \ Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 08-03-2013 passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.74412010 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunbalcum-ll Additional District Judge, Khammam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI S.A.V. RATNAM, Advocate for the Appellant and SRl. KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 & 2 and none appeared for Respondents No.3 & 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the l\rrotor Accident civir Miscelaneous Appezrr be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DE PUry REGISTRAR lllrue Copyll \ To IiECTION OFFICER 1 The chairman' Motor Vehicre Accident craims Tribun: rr-cum-, Additionar Diskict Judge, Khammam. Two CD Copies. GE Ig2 \ I HIGH COURT DATED:27t06t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1785 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \0 \q\?(