The High Court · 2025

1.9. srinivasulu, s/o..41?nd, lgs9 Qt years, occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.3-10-63, 2. M/s. liai Kiran Borewell, Rep. gy.i!r llop__r Rathnakar Reddy, aged Major, -Viiliakanig"r, occullation: Business, R/o.H.trto.EG-s0, Edulagunta, Thottilm bedu, Chittor District.

3. UniterJ lndia lns-uarincq co. !td., Rep. by its Regional Manager, grh Floor, UniterJ Towers, Basheerbagh, HyderaOaO --SOO OZSI Counsel for the Sole Appellant in MACMA 302 ot 2022 And Respondent No.3 in MAGMA.No.s4ol2022 :sRt. S SATYANANDA RAO ...RESPON DENTS/RESPONDE NTS counselfor the Respondent No.l to 3 in MACMA 302 of 2022 And Appellant No.1 to 3 in MACMA.N o.s40t2022 :sRt r.vtsHwARUpAcHARy counsel for the Respondent No.5 in MACMA 302 of 2o2z: None appeared counselfor the Respondent No.2 in MAGMANo.540/2022 :SRl .NAVEEN KUMAR Ca^un*"t{*trc- petpouraewf tp't {n KAct{F aO:-lr--F Reapou.lenl wo.t {u irAOr1A 5qo[}: The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT N/ot,B A1,?eAEEP a HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO 302 COMMON IUDGMENT: Heard Mr. s.satyananda Rao, rearned counser for insurance comPany and Mr. T.Vishwarupa Chary, learned coulsel for the claimants and Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, learned counser for the owner of the crime vehicle in both the appeals.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.302 of 2022 is an appear fired by the insurance company and M.A.C.M.A.No.54 o of z022is an appeal by the claimants. Considering the fact that the two appears arises out of the same award between the same parties arising out of the same accident, this Court felt to decide the two appeals together and accordingly, the common order is passed hereto. 3. T'he facts of the case are that the parents ancl sister of the deceased-P.Chandrasekhar Reddy, claimed compensation of Rs.200,000/- on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle fatal accicrent, have fired the MVop No.224 s of 207s fired under section 766 of Motor vehicres Act, 19gg before the Chairman, Motor Accident Craims Tribunar-cum-XlV Additionar 2 .\1'rl.J MA(MA Nos.302 & 540of2022 Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tritrunal').

4. The brief facts are that on 28.L1 .201,4, when the deceased along with one Narannagari Bhagavath Reddy went to observe digging o[ bore-well, the driver of the bore-well lorry bearing No.AP-2g-BT-2829 (hereinafter referred to as'crime vehicle') while taking the vehicle reverse, drove it in rash and negligent manner/ dashed the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and got crushed under the vehicle and died on the spot.

4.1. The Police, Kowdipally Police Station had registered a case in Crime No.156/2014 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of t:he crime vehicle and took up investigation.

5. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 23 yeats as on thr: date of accident and pursuing II year lntermediate Course and earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month by doing Plumbinp; work as part-time job and contributing his earnings to the claimants and thereby due to the fatal accident thev lost their son, who was the only hope to lead their life. i I I 3 .s{J1../ MACMA Nos.)02 & 5't0 of 2022

6. The respondent/insurance comPany filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and also denied the manner of 'occurrence of accident, the age and income of the deceased and disputed the claim of claimants.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues: i) Whether the cleath of the decetrsed-P.Chandrasekhar Reddy was due to rash and negligent driving of Bore ComPressor lorry bearing No.AP-29-8T-2829 driven by its driver ? ii) Whether the petitioners are. entitled to anv comPensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the tiability of the respondents ? iii) To what relief ?

8. In order to substantiate their cas€., the claimants have examined P.Ws.1 and, 2 and Exs.Al to A5 were marked and on behalf of the insurance comPany, R.W.1 was examined and Ex'BL- policy was marked. g. The Tribunal, on conclusion of the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties, held that the accident took place on 28.11.201,4 due to negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle i I 4 .v 7t./ M,4(|MA liot.3tt2 & 5r0 tl 2022 and the deceased succumbed to the injuries due to the said accident irnd awarded compensation of Rs.g,3z,0o0/- by fastening the liability on the driver, owner of the crime vehicle and insuranc€'company as jointly and severally.

10. The primary ground of challenge by the insurance company in MACI\{A No.30z of 2022 was to the occurrence of the accident a.d involvement of the crime vehicle, in which the deceased died and seco.dly disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Triburral.

77. Th. claimants filed MACMA No.540 of 2022 seeki^g for enhancenrent of compensation. The main contention of the claimants is that the Tribunal has not awarded the just and fair compenseLtion as per the recent judgments of Hon,ble Apex Court and this (lourt. It is contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and also erred in not awirrding consortium to all the claimants and other amounts which they are entitled to.

72. As 'egards the contention of the insurance company, it has been cont,:nded by the learned counsel for the insurance company -rL <!r i 5 s(r/t../ MA( MA Nos.l02 & 5t(tof2(D2 that, from a perusal of the pleadings and evidence on record, there are several missing links to establish and prove that the deceased- P.Chandrasekhar Reddy died of in a motor vehicle accidept. It was the contention of the learned counsel for insurance company that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation and erroneously fastened the liability on the insurance company which is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

13. Insofar as the first ground raised by the insurance company i.e., as to the occurrence of the accident on 28.11..2074, PW .2 (Erkali Narsimlu), who has been examined as an eye witness to the accident, has categorically stated in his chief-examination that on the date of accident, he along with deceased ancl Bhagavanth Reddy went to agricultural fields to observe digging of bore-well work, at that fatal time the driver of the crime vehicle, while taking reverse of the crime vehicle, drove it in a rash and negligent manner without taking any precautions, dashed the deceased, which resulted the deceased falling down and crushed under the \ 6 .v 7i..i L!.4( MA Nos J02 1( j!0 ol 2022 vehicle and died on the spot. He further deposed that the police had examined him and recorded his statement. Though p.w.2 was cross-exarnined, nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence and his testimony was thus trustworthy and reliable.

74. In the absence clf any material on the part of the insurance company, bt, ptacing cogent, substantial material and rebuttal evidence, the contention of the counsel for the insurance company cannot hold water and untenable and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are just and valid.

15. Insofar as the other contention raised by the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid drirripg licence at the time of the accident, except makirrg such assertion, they have neither examined the driver of the offending vehicle nor have summoned the RTA authorities to verify the existence or validi$ of the driving licence. Further, R.w.1, who was examined on behalf of the insurance company, in her cross-examination, stated that as per the police record, the accused-iriver of the crime vehicle was having valid driving licence arrd Ex.Bl-copy of policy was in force, as on the date of 7 v'/i../ MA(:MA Nos.J02 d. 540 d'2022 accident. In view of the above, the contention raised by the insurance company does not deserve merits and hereby rejected. Hence, the said point is answered against the insurance.company and in favour of the claimants

76. Now only point arises before this Court is whether the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation ?

77. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, though they have claimed Rs.9,000/- per month by working as a labour. In the absence of the evidence placed in proof of earnings of the deceased, his monthly income can be reasonably assessed at Rs.8,000/- as per the case of Malakappa-and others vs. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd and anotherr. Accordingly, this Court fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and the same is taken for assessing the proper compensation.

18. Perusal of the impugned award, under the conventional heads i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,500 f -, Rs.44,o0o/ - and Rs.1 6,soo/ - ' zozs eo rtog r'( tt.'/ MA(MA Nos.302 & 51() o{ 2022 8 respectively.Asregardtoawardofconsortium,theHon,bleApex CourtinlrlationallnsuranceCo.Ltd.,v.PranaySethiandothers2, atparagrirphNo.Sg.SheldtlratreasonablefiguresonCohventional heads,namely,lossofestate,lossofconsortiumandfuneral expensesshouldbeRs'15'000/-'Rs'40'000/-andRs'15'000/- respectivelyandtheaforesaidamountsshouldbeenhancedatthe rate of 10% in every three years' In Magma General lnsurance Company Ltd., v' Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others' wherein the Hon,ble Supreme Court, while referring its own judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra)' has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- to each claimants' Tg.Tlrerefore,inviewoftheabovedecision,theclaimantsare entitledtoRs.40,0oo/-eachtowardsconsortium.Theclaimantsare alsoerrtitledtoreceivetheaforesaidamountwithenhanced amount at the rate of 10% for each block period of every three years.Thus,claimantsareentitledtoanamountofRs.l.,32,000/- (Rs.44,000/-x3)towardsconsortium,Rs.].6,500f-eachRs.15,000/- + 10%of Rs.15,000/-) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses since (irst block period of three years have elapsed from the date of ' lzottl L6 scc 580 2', 9 .s( 7t.J MA( MA Nos.J02 1( 5t0 ol2022 the award i.e., 24.01.2022. The claimants are also entitled to interest @ 7.SYo per annum instead of 6% per annum.

20. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to recalculate the compensatiorr keeping in view the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra): Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lncome Future prospects Total income Deduction towards personal and livi Net monthly income Rs.96,000/- per annum 8000 .m P.4., of income i.e., Rs.8,000 Rs.1,34100/- p.a., Rs.96,000/- + Rs.57,200/- (i.e., 50% of the total income) Rs,67,200/- (i.e., Rs.1,U,A}O/- (-l Multiplier 18 Loss of dependency Compensation for loss of consortium Loss of estate -x3 Funeral expenses 'fotal compensation to be Rs.12,09,600/- (i.e., Rs.67,200/ - x 18 Rs. L,32,000/- Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 1,6,500/- [Rs.'1,3,74,600/-

27. In view of the above, the award passed by the learned t \ Tribunal in MVoP No.224s of 201,s is accordingly modified and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.g,33,0oo/- to t0 Rs.73,74,500/ -, subject to the payment of deficit court fee on the MA( MA !*t.t 302 & it0 ol 2022 enhancecl compensation amount.

22. Th. awarded interest of 6o/o p.a., is also modified and the claimantr; are entitred to receive the amount of Rs.13,74,600/ _with interest @ 7.5o/o per annunt from the date of the claim petition made before thr: Tribunal till the date of the actual payment.

23. The' insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount cf compensation within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this ordcr.

24. The claimants are entitled to receive the amou.t as per the award an,l decree

25. In the result, MACMA No.302 of 2022fired by the insurance company stands dismissed and MACMA No.540 of 2}z2filed by claimants stands allowed. Tl'rere srrail be'no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applicatio,s, if ar1f, shail stand closed. To AR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor accident Claims Tribunal cum XIV Additional Chief Judg;e, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With Records) 'r--^.-:: ,J

2. one CC to SRl. S SATYANANDA RAo, Advocate [oPUc] 3.oneCCtoSRl.T.VISHWARUPACHARY,Advocate[oPUc] 4. One CC to Sri. N.NAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies I Kvr/pr \+ '' r:. !l-. { HIGH COURT SCR DATED:31 11012025 ! \ 21 t..r$ ?ffi .L COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.302 AND 540 OF 2022 DISMISS{NG THE MACMA.N O. 30212022 ALLOWING THE MACMA.N O. 54012022 a 4r* k"t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD , ! FRIDAY, THE THTRTY FTRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTTCE SUDDALA CHALAPATFII RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO: 302 OF 2022 Between: The United lndia. lnsurance company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, T.claims Hub, Basheerbagh Hyderabad AND ...APPELLANT/Respondent 3

1. P. venkata Reddy, s/o. yella Reddy Aged 45 years, occ. Agriculture. 2. B. yadamma, wo. p. Venkata Reddy, Aged 42years, occ.House hold. 3. s. chandrakala, wo. Durga Reddy, Aged 22 years, Household. All are R/o. silampally viilage, H/o. chilipched, Kowdipally Mandal. Medak District

4. c. sreenivasulu, S/o. Anand, Aggg 24years, occ. Driver, R/o. H.No.3-10-63, Ram Nagar, Bhongir, NalgondiDistrict.

5. M/s. sai Kiran Borewel!,.Fgp. by its prop. T. Ratnakar Reddy, Age. Malor, occ. Business, H.. No. EG-SO, E-d urag unia, Vinayaknigar, TtiottiHila;: chittoor District. (owner of the Borefrefi torry be'aring No'ep-2g:Bi:idigl ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 &2 M.A.C.M.A.NO: 540 OF 2022 Between

1. P. venkat Reddy, s/o. Yella Reddy, aged about 49 years, occ: Agriculture, 2. P. Yadamma, wo. P. venkat Reddy, aged about 46 years, occ: Household, 3. s. chandrakala, wo. Durga Reddy, aged about 26 years, occ: Household, All are R/o. silampally Vilrage, H/o.chilipched, Kowdiplly Mandal, Medak District. ...CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS ENT' 1 G. Srinivasulu, S/o. Anand, Aged 31 years, occ: Driver, Rl/o.H.No.3-10-63, Ram llagar, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 2 3 M/s. Sai Kiran Borewell, Rep. by its Prop. T. Rathnakar Reddy, aged Major, Occupation: Business, R/o.H.No.EG-50, Edulagunta, Vinayakanagar, Thottambedu, Chittor District. United lndia lnsuarance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager, 9th Floor, United Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 029. ...RESPON DENTS/RESPON DENTS Appeerls under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 2245 Of 2015 Dated. 24.01.2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 ancl upon hearing the argument of SRI S SATYANANDA RAO, Advocate for the the Sole Appellant in MACMA 302 of 2022 and Respondent No.3 in MACMA.No.54012022 and SRI T.VISHWARUPACHARY, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 to 3 in MACMA 302 of 2022 and Appellant No.1 to 3 in rtroueoppolcj MACMA.No.li40l2022 ano.frbRt .NAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent Aa,".*_"_fu.q No.2 in MACMA.No.540/2022 and None appeared for the Respondent No.S in Vetrfa'ewrqr{r-MACMA 302 of 2022 ft"' HF:-i.(r,5\NU2- g{e-at" This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.302 of 2022 be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That :he Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal M.A.C.M.A.No. S40 of 2022 be and is hereby allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.8,113,000 to Rs.13,74,6001- subject to the payment of deficit court fee on the errhanced compensation amount. n

3. That the rate of lnterest for the enhanced compensation amount be and hereby is modified from 6% p.a. to 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petiticn made before the Tribunal till the date of actual payment.

4. That lhe lnsurance company be and hereby is directed to deposit the entire amourt of compensation within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment; ,i

5. That the claimants be and hereby are entitled to receive the amount as per the award and decree of the tribunal.

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this.appeal. Sd/- M.JAWAHAR ASSISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The chairman, Motor accident Claims Tribunal cum XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With Records)

2. Two CD Copies Kvr/pr w \ HIGH COURT scR,J DATED:31 11012025 COiI/IMON DECREE MACMA.No.302 AND 540 OF 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA.N O. 30212022 AND ALLOWING THE MACMA.N O. 54012022 )-t. .rff't s$. i