High Court · 2025

lVl, Srinivas Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged Major, Occupation. Business, Rlo2-79, Hanumam Sai Colony, Uppal, Ranga Reddy Diskict. (Owner of the Passton Pro Motor Cycle Bearing No AP 29 AV 5834) The National lnsurance Company Limited,, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Babu Khan Estate, Plot No. 611, 6th Floor, Opposite. Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500 001 (Policy Certificate No. 39010231 156202012889 valid from 25.08.201 5 lo 24.08.20 1 6) M- Janaki Reddy,, S/o M. Srinivas Reddy, Aged Major, Occupation. Driver of the Crime Vehicle, Resident of C/o Shop NO. 73, Block-9, A.P.H.B., Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. (Rider of the Crime passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 29 AV 5834) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appeltants: SRt JAGATHPAL REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 3: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Ms. G. SWATI GUDA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT t' THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE RENUzu. YARA M.A.C.M.A. No.467 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Jaqathpal Reddy Kasireddy, learnerl (rounsei for the appellants/ cla imarr t s and Sri M. Ramakrishna. l': rned counsel appearing on behzrlf of Ms. S',r'ati Guda, learned st arlding counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company. Pertt st'd the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appt:lli nts/claimants aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the lezt-rred Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXIV 'A l:litional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'thc Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2632 of 2O15, clated 04-O5.2O22.

3. The appellants/claimants filed the claim 1>t'tition seeking compensation of iRs.25,00,OOO/ from the respontlt::rts jointly and severally on account of death of one N. Srinivas r a road trafltc accident. On 17.1O.2015, the deceased was walkirrli b1' the side of the road neal Christ the King Church at Ramanthirpur of Uppal' Respondent No.1 who is the owner-cum-rider o' Passion pro motorcycle be aring registration No.AP 29 AV 5834 p -oceeding from Qpal torrvarcls Ramanthapur has driven in rasl I and negligent 2 manner and dashed the deceased who was proceeding by foot causing fatal head injury and injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi hospital Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation. w\ \ 4 The claimants got examined pWs and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Respondent No.2 got marked trx.B1 Certificate_cum- policy schedule. 1

5. The Tribunal having examined the oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs. 12,O4,OOO/_with interest at 7.5ok per annum. Aggrievecl by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred.

6. In grounds of appeal, the claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month as a labourer. Further, it is contended that the Tribunai has erroneousry considered the age of the deceased as 38 years instead of 32 years as the claimant No.l and deceased were of the same age group. Lastly, it is contended that the Tribunal has to award enhanced amount at lO%oper annum after every three years under conventional heads. -\/ -'*1 t - --.--,- / .. :..'8 t{K 3, a) i I )

7. During argnments 1n appeal, the learned r:ounsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was workinll as a driver in VSR Transport service ard as per the judgmer-rr_ of the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India in Janabai W D/o Dinkarrao Ghoppade and others v. ICICI Lambord Insurance Com.prany Limitedr, Rs.9,000/- has tcr be considered as notional incom,.:. The age has to be taken at 27 years ancl future prospects have to lte calculated. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No..z conceded that the claimants are entitled to consortium as per tl're jr.rdgment of the Hon'ble Supremr: court of India Magma General Insurance company Limited v. Nanu Ram @) chuhru Ram :r,d others2 and that the Tribr.rnal has taken the age of the deceas::r,t rightly as 38 B. As per FIR, the deceased was a private e:mployee. The claimants did not lead evidence to prove avocatior trnd income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has taker_r l;ls.6,O0o/_ per month notion:rl income. It is to be seen that the acr: Cent occurred in the year 2015. As per the judgment of the Hr:,r,ble Supreme Court of India in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, R,rlfal Sundaram '(zozz) ro scc stz tlzoral ra scc r:o w\i \ 4 Alliancer, an amount of Rs.4,500/ was taken as the notional income of labourer in the year 2OO4 and, up to the year 2011, that being the case, the income of a labourer in the year 20i5 will be around Rs.6,000/ per month. In the present case, the deceased was a private employee but not labourer as per the record. Therefore' the Tribunar erred in taking the income of rhe deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The craimants argued that the notional income be taken at Rs.10,00O f _ can be taken as per Janabai case (1 supraf . However, it is a point to be noted that the victim in the Janabai case was a resident of Mumbar urhere the standard of living is high. In the instant case, the victim u,as a resrdent of Hyderabad and notional income is taken as Rs.8,000/_ per month.

9. Coming to the age of the deceased, the police record uniformly as per FIR, charge sheet, inquest report and pMtr report shows the age of the deceased as 3O years. Hou.ever, the age of the chiidren of the deceased is shown to be 20 years and 1g years respectively in the year 2015 at the time of liling the claim petition i.e., the year of accident. It is not possible that the wife of the deceased u,as aged 12 years i'e' 2 years order tha,. the deceased or that the deceased i\'ad giren birth to his children while he was only i0 years old. At a minimum, the deceased may have been 18 years oid when his first '(2ottl 13 scc 236 i I I ; i I w 5 daughter (petitioner No.2) was born. Therefore, thr: 'lribunal taking the age of the deceased as 38 years is appropriate

10. To qualtify the compensation towards loss o1- ,lependency, as per judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Nai:irrnal Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and otherso, if future yrr':spects at lOoh i.e., Rs.3,20Cr/- is added to the monthly income, tire net monthly income comes to Rs. 11,200/- (Rs.B,OO0/- + Rs.3,11()O/-). There are four (4) dependants on the deceased arld I I 4th of t-i,:, income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. From the net annual income of Rs.1,34,4OO/- (Rs. ll,2}Oxl2l, if ll4tt, of the income is deducted towards personal expenses, the annua r:ontribution of the deceasecl to the claimants would be Rs. f .i)(.r,8OO/-. For a person aged liom 36 to 40 years as per the judgme n t of Smt. Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation', the ml h.iplier would be '15'. Thus, the total compensation under the l-u:ad of loss of dependency' would be Rs. 15,12,OOO/- (Rs. I,34,1t)(_t x 15) instead of Rs. 1 l,34,OOO I . awarded by the Tribunal.

11. The Tribun:rl has awarded Rs.15,000/- each t,twards funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs.4O,000/- towarrlr; consortium to I t claimart No. [. However, in view of National Insrrrance Co. Ltd. I l olzorzl t te scc oao lzoosl e s.c.c. rzr 6 Vs. Pranay Sethi and others', the said finding is set aside and the claimants are granted Rs.33,OOO/- torvards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Further granted Rs.44,000/- to claimant No.1 towards spousal consortium, Rs.44,OOO/- each to claimant Nos.2 and 3 towards parental consortium and Rs.44,OO0/ to claimant No.4 towards filial consortium. Thus, in all the claimants are awarded Rs. 17,2 1,OOO/-. t2 In the result, the Appeal is aliowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 12,04,O00/- to Rs.17,2I,OOOl-., u.hich shall carry interest @i 7.5o/o per annum. The Respondent Nos.l to 3 shall pa1. the compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Upon such payment made, the claim petitioners are entitled to w,ithdraw the entire amount in proportion to their shares as as,arded by the Tribunal without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaleous Petitions, if aly, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shali be no order as to costs. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1 The Cha Judge, C irman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum X Additional Chief ity Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2 One CC to SRl. K. JAGATHPAL REDDy Advocate [OpUC] l J 4 One CC to MS. G. SWATT GUDA Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies BA/PSL ! t t \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 510712025 I I JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.N0.467 of 2023 a--. ,.\t ig S,T/i o SEP 2M r) 1,,5..:it1 '\, -,: i, i .)' 2 DRAFTS M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED Dl IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAO TUESDAY , THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO:467 OF 2023 Between: 1 MT N.Gayathri @ P. Gayathri,, W.o, Late N. Srinivas alais P. Srinivas Aged about 32 years, Occupation. Household.

2. N. Divya Bhargavi Alais P. Divya Bhargavi, D/o Late N. Srinivas Alais P. Srinivas Aged about 20 years, Occupation. Student

3. N.Sravy-a Latha alais P-Sravya Latha, D/o Late N Srinivas Alais P. Srinivas Aged about 18 years, Occupation. Student.

4. Smt. N. Lalitha Alais P. Lalitha, S/o. P. Late N. Selvara;, Aged about 55 years, Occupatron. Household. (All are residents of H.No. 12-15-732, Manikeswar Nagar, Osmania University Campus, Tarnaka, Hyderabad - 500 007) ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND tVl. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged Major, Occupation. Business, No2-79, Hanumam Sai Colony, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. (Owner of the Passion Pro lVlotor Cycle Bearing No AP 29 AV 5834) The National lnsurance Company Limited,, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Babu Khan Estate, Plot No. 611, 6th Floor, Opposite. ParishramBhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500 001 (Policy Certificate No. 39010231 156202012889 valid from 25.08.2015 to 24.08.2016) M. Janaki Reddy,, S/o M. Srinivas Reddy, Aged Major, Occupation. Driver of the Crime Vehicle, Resrdent of C/o Shop NO. 73, Block-9, A.P.H.B., Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. (Rider of the Crime passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 29 AV 5834) 2 3 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles against the judgment and decree in M.V.O.P. No.2632 ol 2015 daled 0410212022, on the file of Court of the Chairman lt/otor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum XXIV 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 and upon heaiing the arguments of Sri. K. Jagathpal Reddy Advocate for Appelllants and of Sri. Ms. G. Swathi Advocate for Respondent No.2 and None Appeared for Respondent No.1 & 3. This Court doth order and decree as follows: i

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be arrd hereby is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount awardeC cy the Tribunal from Rs.12,04,200 / - to Rs. 17,21 ,OO0l-, which shall carry nte'est at 7.5% p.a. 2. That the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall pay the compen:;zrtion within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this Order.

3. That upon such payment made, the claim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the entire amount in proportion to their shares as awarcle,l by the Tribunal without furnishing any security.

4. That save as aforesaid the decree of the Tribunal shall sl.ands confirmed in all other respecls and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DI=PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cunr X Additional Chief \_/ .SECTION OFFICER Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies BA,/PSL ) I I HIGH COURT DATED:15107t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.4it of 2023 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED