The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appeltant: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 1, Z and 4i Sri V. Venkateshwarlu Counsel for the Respondent No. S: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MACMA No.52LOF 2022 DATE:19.12.2025 Between: United India Insurance Co.Ltd., rep.by its Manager, T.P.Flub, Abids, Hyderabad. Maheshwaram Sumathi, and four others. JUDGMENT: .... Appellant/ respondent No'2 Rcs pondents/ Petitioners/ ResPondent No'1 Heard Mr. N.Chanddra Sckhar' learned counsel representing Mr. A.Ramakrishna Reddr', lc:arnctl couuscl for the appellant- insurance company and Mr. 'f 'Venkat Rathnam' learned counsel representing Mr. Vidiyala Venkateshwarlu' learned counsel for respondent Nos. I to 4/claimants'

2. The present appeal has been f,rled by the appellant/ insurance company challcnging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Acctdent Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar' (for short' 'lribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.573 of 2O15, dated 07'O4'2O22' thereby seeking to set-aside thc au'ard against the insltrance company' 2 SCR,J MACMA Na s21ol2O22

3. The bricf factuerl matrix of the present erppeal is as under: 3.1. On 27.12.2O14, M.Krishna @ Krishnamachary (hereinafter relerred to as 'clcccased') rvas proccecling cn his motorc-vcle bearing reqistration No.Ap 2t)_BJ_75g9 to his house from Nadergul, u,hen reached beside Sri Nilaya Township Kaman, Badar_rgpet at about 7. OO p. m. , one ridt:r of pulsar motorc_\.cle bearing registration No.AP-29-tsR- 16g3 (,ereinafter referred to as ,crime vehicle,) came in high speed in a rash and negligent rnanner, hit the motorcycle of the deceasecl i'r a op,osite direction, as a result, deceasr:d fell down and sustained head eLnd multiple lracture in junes. Immcdiatcly, he u'zrs shrfted to om Sai Hospital, Barapur and later shirted to (]andhi Hospital, and rvhile undergoing treatment hc succumbcd to injuries on 30.1 2.2O14.

3.2. 'l'hc police, Meerpet, police Station registered a cas. in Crime No.829/20J4 and laid a charge sheet before thc competent Court. 3.3. 'l'he claimants, i.e., wife, children and parents of the deceasecl, have filed claim petition against owner_cum_rider of the cnme vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor Vehiclcs Act, 1988, Rule 47S (t) (b) of ApMV Act Rules, 1989 r/u, Sed ion I a0(c) of MV Act, before the Tri bu nal claim ing compensation of Rs, iO,00,0O0/- together lr,ith from r I.rc date of accident till realization. costs anci interest Cs Ka-u ?4 t scR'l MACMA No.521ol2022

3.4. It was contended that the deceased was aged 35 years, hale and healthy as on the date of the accident and was working as Goldsmith and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the welfare of his family and because of death of deceased, claim petitioners have lost their love and affection and they become destitute'

4. The respondent No.s herein, who is the rider-cum-owner of the crime vehicle, frled counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contend ed inter alia Lhat he is not involved in the alleged accident, that the Police have falselv implicated him in the criminal case in order to hle the claim against the insurance company, and that even assuming that accident occurred due to negligence of this respondent, it is flor the insurance company to pay the compensation, as the crime vehicle i'r'as duly insured with it and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition'

5. The appellant-lnsurance Company hled counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition aod inter alia contended that the owner of the crime vehicle did not inform this respondent in respect of the factum of accident in active collusion with the not holding driving claimants; that the rider of crime vehicle license to drive the motorcycle. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation' They further submitted that the owner of the crime vehicle has denied his involvement in the "\'as Cs (o.-l 4 scR,l MACtnA No 52) ol2022 accident, and also contended that the criminal czrse filed against him ended in acquir tal in C.C.No.gO of 2o 15 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate and the learned Magistrate gave a categoriczrl finriing that the crime vehi<:le was implicated onlv to facilitate the family members of the deceased to file claim petition for compensation and on that ground itself, the claim petition is liable to bc dismissed. 6 On the basis ol the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the follou ing issucs: ^ r) V/he(her ctrt accident occttrred_ on 27.12.20i4 at about l9.OO hours besicle Sri nibgo foirnslip' 'Xo^ou, l) ctd a r ry p e t, S ar o o rnag ar M and. ai, n, ng o n.iar_t D is trict, causing the death of the deceased ii a ,iii"o..ra.nt, ny: rTsl and negligent d.iuing oy Aae,, of n tso, trtotorcqclc beairtg No.Ap_29_BR_l6si b"hg irir.,, by r?sltoruk'nl No I .) ii.) Wlrc'tlter tlte 1;etitioners ore entitLetj Jor compensatton, i1'so, ar u'ttot o,nount and from *nt.n "r"iZ,n1"n,"z iii) To uthat retieJ? Ir-r order to substantiate the case, on trehaif o[ thc claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 r,r.ere r:xamined and Exs.Al to AS were marked. On behalf of respondents, RWs. I and 2were examined and Exs.B1 to 5 u,ere markecl

8. The Tribr-rnal, after considering the evidence of p.Ws. 1 & 2, RWs. 1 and 2 and <locumentar5z evidence i.e_, Exs.A 1 to A5 and Exs.li I to 85. came to a conclusion that the ac<:ident took place cs(cl 5 scR,r MACMA No-52t ol2022 due to rash and negligent riding of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs. 17,09,80O/- along with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The liabiliry was fixed on the rider-cum-owner of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.5 herein and the appellant-insurance company as jointly and severally, to pay the said compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant- insurance company of motorcycle filed the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the appellant i.e., insurance company of the crime vehicle, is not liable to pay the compensation as there is no evidence to show that the rider of the crime vehicle was involveci in the accident, as the leamed Magistrate while acqu itting the accused/ rider of motorcycle has categorically held that the accused is implicated only to facilitate the family members of the deceased to file the claim petition.

10. Learned counsel for appellant further contended that the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,OOO/ - without there being any documentary evidence and therefore, since no document is hled to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.a,SOO/- per month as notional income as per the decision of Ramachandrappa us. Cs (^-tt 6 scR.l MACMA No.521ol2O22 Manager, Rogal Sundct.rant Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., & othersl . He further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier of '16', inslead of '15' where the age of deceased fell in the group ol 35 to 40 -r'ears, and as such, it is erroneous and thc au,ard is liablc to be s<:t aside. 1 1. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants submitted that the Tribunal, ort rlue appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record, had rightly aw,arded the compensation and there is no need to interfere u,ith the award of the Tribuna_l and prayed to dismiss thc appea[. A. After hearing the submissions on both sides and having given earnest consideration to their submissions, perused the record. B. 'l-he onh poir-rr t hich falls for consideration before this Court is, rvhether tl-rc linclirrgs arrived by the Tribunal are just and proper and sust ain;rlt le ?

12. 'lhc rnain cor.lt(.ntion o[ thc learned counsel for the appellarrt is that, dt:spitc clcar acquitLal in the criminal case registered against the ridcr oI the crime velriclc (rcspondent No.5 herein) and as the delay of threc clal's in lodginli lhc I.-lR when the respondent No.S denied, the ' .t t :o r I sc l9. t ( 7 sCR-l MACMA No.521ol2022 Tribunal erroneously fastened liability on the appellant without proper appreciation of the evidence of R.W.2'

13. As seen from the evidence on record, R W'2-rider of the crime vehicle, in his cross-examination, admitted that FIR was registered against him and as per Ex.AS in column-8 of the Motor Vehicle Inspector has recorded that 'left side foot rest broken'and one of his uncles Yadagiri Rao, while collecting the crime vehicle after inspection bY the MVI, has mentioned that rider of the crime vehicle had received tiacture injury, which dralr's specihc inference to the notice of this Court as to the involvement of the crime vehicle in the disputed accident, which resulted in death of the deceased'

11. Further, P.W.2-A.Ramulu, who is an eye r'r'itness to the accident, cleposed that on the fateful day of the accident' the deceased was Proceeding on his motorcycle from Naclargul to Bagangpet, and reached Srinilaya Township in front of her pan shop' at that time, onc rider of motorcycle bearing No'AP-29-BR- 1683 came from Badangpet, drove in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which' deceased fell down from thc motorcycle and received grievous injuries including head iniury and immediately, he was shifted to Hospital in.108 vehicle' Further' it is statcd that the rider of the crime vehicle has also received injuries 8 scR,t MACMA No.S21of 2022 and that latcr hc ca rr(, to know that the deceased succumbed to injuries and in tho cross_examination nothing was elicited to discredii his tcstimor.rl, and from the evidence of p.W.2, it can be ilrfor"-, f rL -! . r- - ""Erri-r iir(ii in(:al'l.r('vcrricie rvas in'orvecl in the disputed accident and it is settlccl lan, that mere acquittal in the criminal case and findings of the t:riminal case are not binding on the civil Court, as such, the corr tt r.r tio r.ts of tht, a p;rella rrt_insu rancc company are hereby rejected

15. lnsofar.rs t^t,tlcla'i^ l.clgir.rg li,l, having regard to the facts and circ urls t;r r.rc.c,s, tlris ( ourt is ol the consiclcred opinion that it is natural for a p,,rs,rrr suffcring fr<rm f126.1r,." grievous injuries to requirt' .rt'dicar assisi.r.t-r' ror sLr.rle tirnr., .rnd therefore, mere threc days rleray ir rotrllir-rr1 trrc l;rr is r-r.t iatar kr the case of the crairn petitioners.

16. ln thc lrght ol Lhc abovt,, this Court is of the considered view that the crim. i'c'hicit' trrivt'n bf its rider-respondent No.5 is involved in thc disputcrl accidcnt and cleceased succumbed to injuries. The tl'rc t',,.icJt'nt.e of c_ye witness i.e., p.W.2 and corrients of I;x.A i_l;lR, Ex.A2_charge sheet, Ex.A3_Inquest report, Ex.A4-.ost-m.rt.r.. examination report and Ex.A5_MVI report, a.d said fact r.r,as su L)p()t.tc(l b\ <^^ 9 scR.l MACMA No 521o1 2O2 2 the respondenL No.5 though acquitted in a criminal case, cannot escape from the tortious liability. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding the respondent No.5 and the appellant-insurance company are liable to pay the compensation.

17. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, perusal of the record would disclose that as per Ex.A 1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge-sheet, Ex.A3_ inquest report and Ex.A4-pME report, the age of the deceased was shorvn as 35 years as on the date of the accident. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. pranay Sethi and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "42. As far as the multiplier is concemed, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall bc gurded l)y Step 2 that frnds place in para 19 of S.arlc Venna lSarlo Venna \' . DTC, (2OO9) 6 SCC 12 1 : (2OO9J 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2OO9l 2 SCC (Cril 10021 read with para 42 of ttre said judgment. For the sake o[ completeness, para 42 is extracted below : (Sarla Verma case [Sarla Vennav. DrC, eoogl6 SCC t2l : (2OO9l 2 SCC (Civ] 770 : (2oo9l 2 SCC (Cri) 10021 , ScC p. 1a0) "42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Cotumn (4) of the Table above (prepared bl applying Susamma Thomas lKerala SRIC v, Susamrnc Thontas. (1994l' 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 33Sl , fntok Chandra IUP SR?"C v. Tritok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 3621 and Clrarhe lNew lrLdia Assurance Co. Ltd.. v. Clnrtie, (2OO5l 10 SCC 72O : 2005 SCC (Cri) 16571 ), which starts with an operative multiplier of l8 (for the age groups of I5 to 20 and 2l lo 25 _years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M t7 tor 26 to 30 years, M- 16 for 3 t to 35 years, M_ l5 for 36 to 40 Iears, M-14 for 4l to 45 years, and M t3 tor (20r7) 16 scc 680 ) 10 5Cn'l MACMA No.521oJ 2022 46 to 50 years, lhcrl reduccd b) tlvo unils for everv five years, that is, I\'1-11 for 51 to 55 years, M 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 6l to 65 years arld M-5 for 66 to 70 years'"

18. In the light of above decision, since the age of the deceased was 35 vears' the prol)er mtlltiplier is'16' arld the learned Tribunal was justified in appiying proper muttiptier and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant is rejected'

19. The other contcntioll of the learned counsel for appellant is that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. Insofar as the income of the deceased, the claimants stated that l,he dcceasctl s as u'orkir-rg as Goldsmith and was earning Rs.10,O00/ pt'r motlth. Pcrusal of Flx.A2-charge sheet and Ex.A3-inquest rcport shon's that thc dcccased u'as a goldsmith' In the said circumstanccs, lirc s ork ol goldsrnith is dcfinitety a skilled work and thc deccased br:inq lhc :rge ol 35 r c:ars, this Court is of the considered vicn, that the dcccased could have earned not less than Rs.9,OOO/- per month. Thereforc, the Tribunal was justified in hxing his monthly incomc ar Rs.9,0OO/ and therefore, the said finding of the Tribunal is valid, arrd the said contenlion of the Iearned counsel for the appellant- insurance compan]' is rcjected.

20. In the light ol thc above hndings, this Court is ol the considered vierv tlral the appellant-insurance company faile d to make out any sul)stantial ground warranting interference of this Court with the vt'ell considered order of the learned Tribunal. ( r\ 11 scR,1 MACMA No-527 ol2022

21. In the result, Appeal is dismissed. The appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The claimants are entitled to the apportionment of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. There shal[ be no order as to To, Pending miscellaneous applications if apV shall stand closed' Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional District " S...ions judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.8' Nagar'(with records) "nO

2. One CC to Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri V. Venkateshwadu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies w l I I I I i i l ,t:. ,.. i. iE!r.'='.u" +ltsf; tr:r:'-- ..,\ HIGH COURT SCR, J DATED: 1911212025 * , # iHe t'-' /i, ( ),, * s 24 t'l * PAT JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.N 0.521 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS a tD i' \(? I i I I I I l . !N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 521 OF 2022 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its Manager, T.P. Hub, 2M Floor, Possnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001 ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2 AND

6. Maheshwaram Sumathi, W/o Late M. Krishna or Krishnamachary, Age. 32 years, Occ. Housewife,

7. Maheshwaram Yeshwantha, Dio Late M. Krishna or Krishnamachary, Age. 3 years, Occ. Nil

8. Maheshwaram Govardhan Chary @ Govardhan (Died), (Died as per his LRs and Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4)

9. Maheshwaram Sharada, W/o Late M. Govardhan Chary or Govardhan, Age. 61 years, Occ. Housewife (Respondent No.2 is minor and is being Represented by her mother and natural guardian M. Sumathi i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) All are R/o H.No.8-50/6, Prashanthi Nagar, Lenin Nagar, Meerpet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENT Nos. I to 4/PETITIONERS

10.A. Sai Kumar, S/o Vijay Lingam, Age. 25 years, Occ. Private Service and Owner and Rider of the crime vehicle No. AP 29 BR 1683, R/o H.No.137/B, Sai Nilaya Township, Badangpet, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - 500 058 ...RESPONDENT No. S/RESPONDENT No. 1 Appeal filed under Section '1 73 of M.V.Act against the Order and Decree dated 07-04-2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.573 OF 2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. / /i This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri V. Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and none appeared for Respondent No. 5 either in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as fotlows: d ism issed;

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is 2. That the appellant-lnsurance Company be and hereby directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks froni the date of receipt of copy of this order; 3. That the claimants be and hereby entitled to the apportionment of the 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. amount as directed by the tribunal;and Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' cTtoN o FFICER To, 1 The chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. 2 Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT SCR, J DATED: 1911212025 E' !i I -r- 42 a 1n /-t ) ? ;-iz t DECREE MACMA.No.521 o12022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1/