The High Court · 2025

THE ]FION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.35 and 2O4 of 2O2O COMMON .TUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.35 of 2O2O is hled by the Reliance General Insurance C)ompany Limited and M.A.c.M.A.No.2o4 of 2o2o is {iled by the ClaimarLts ;rgainst the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, zrt Medak (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.v.o.P. Nc. B'22 of 2015, dated 29.08.2019. The claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,O00/- on account of death of PaIa Rahul Sidhartha, (tterein after referred as 'deceased') who died in Motor Vehicle accident occrrrred on 13.12.2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they art: arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief fercts of the case are that on 13.12.2015, the deceased went to Rajiv Gandhi [nternational Airport to see-off his friend and after seeing-off his friend, while the deceased was returning from the Airport to Hyderaba,l city on motorcycle bearing No.TS-oB DA-BL4T. The ( 2 NNR.I M A.C.LIA.N o s.35 and 204 ol 2020 deceased was driving the motorcycle along with his friend Vishnu, who ,vvas pillion-rid.er. When the deceased reached Kishanguda flyover and was taking a u-turn, an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-28-X-96O 1 driven by the driver came from Shamshabad side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, but succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. The police, Rajiv Gandhi Airport Police station had registered a case in Crime No.384 of 2O15 against the driver of the crime vehicle under Section 304-4 and 338 of IPC'

4. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 19 years and was a brilliant student and was studying third year Engineering student in Chemical Engineering, but d.ue to rash and negligent driving of the crime auto, the deceased died and if the deceased would have been alive, the deceased would secured gainful employment and would have earned a handsome salary to support his parents. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their future dependency for which claimants claimed Rs.2o,o0,0oo/-, as compensation. '/-) 3 NNR,/ MA.C.MA,Nos.35 aM204 of 2020

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-Driver of the crime Auto and rer;pondent No.2 - Owner of the crime auto remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place and further contended that cleceased was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident ancl the accident occurred due to the self negligence of the deceased an<l the deceased death was his own fault and also driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license and therefore, the insurance company has to be exonerated and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: " 1. whether the deceased died due to rash and negtigent d"riuing of the Auto bearing No.AP-28-X-9601 bg its driuer?

2. Whether tlrc claimants are en what amcunt gltd from whom? \

3. To what relief.?" titled for compensation and if so, to Yi &... 4 NNR,I MA.C.MA.Nos.35 aul204 of 2020

7. After perusing the orai and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.16,5O,OOOl- aiong with interest@19o/o per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded the claimants prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.2O4 of 2O2O seeking enhancement of the compensation and the respondent No.3 - Insurance company preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.35 of 2O2O on the following among the other grounds. g. Learned. counsel for the Insurance Company contended that deceased was not a brilliant student and had several backlogs in each semester and even if the deceased would have completed graduation successfully, the deceased would not have obtain gainful employment as he was not excellence in his studies. However, the learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased was having backlogs in his previous semesters and was only a 3'd Year student of the 4 years Engineer Course has erroneously taken notional of the deceased @ Rs. 1 O,0O O I - per month which is much higher. i. i i I ,,/- -l 5 IV?VR,I MA.C.MJL.N09.35 and204 of 2020

10. Learnt:d counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, however the learned Tribunal has not taken the contributory negligence on the part rf the deceased and ought to have. held that there is 50% of negligence c n the part of the deceased and also the learned Tribunal ought to ha're etpportioned the compensation from both the Insurance Companies of the vehicles i.e., Crime Vehicle zrnd Deceased Vehicle, as there was he'ad-on collision between two vehicles, as held by this Court in A.Jaga rlamulu a. Md.Afzal Migan and qnothersr and further contended that the rate of interest at 9o/o p.a. awarded on the compensatio:r amount is on higher side and ought have granted 6% p.a. on the comp()nsation amount.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased wa:i aEIe about 19 years as on the date of the accident and studying B.Tt:ch Chemical Engineering and the deceased was active in cultural activities and the deceased was taking keen interest in clearing backlogs to gt:t good emplolrrnsnl. I zoo6 Ro gss t'. 6 IVNTT,I MA.C.M A.N o s.35 aud]la oJ]020 12 Learned counsel for the claimants further contended that the Tribunal having accepted the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No'AP-2S-X- 960 i, but the learned Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,00O/- per month only, as such the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased @ Rs'25,000/- per month, as the deceased rn'as well educated with computer knorvledge and would had got the job in their Engineer stream or even the deceased was very active in cultural activities and coLrld have earned more than expected in the sports field and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation amount and grant fair and just c\ompensation under various head. 13 Heard learned Sri T.Mahender Rcro Rao,learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Chan dra Sekhar Reddg, learned counsel for the claimants.

14. Admittedly, both the parties have filed separate appeal against the A'uvard passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is dispute regard.ing liability of the In*rrfance Company and income of the i'r 7 NNR,I MA.C.MA.Nos.35 ail204 of 2020 deceased. '1'herefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are that: t) whether the 'fribunctl has rightly not exonerated the Insurance Compang J'rom the liability. ii) whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceas,zd. iii) Wrcther the claimants a"re entitled fo, the enhanced. compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 tir 2

15. Admitt,:d15,', the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 13.12.2Oi5. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased and also there is no dispute with regard to that deceased was Third year Engineering student. Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.AS- charge' sheer- shows that the accid.ent had occur due to rash and negligent driizing by the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP-28-X-9)601 and Ex.A7 is the Driving Vehicle of the deceased, hence, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from their liabitity.

16. As far as assessing of monthly income of the deceased is concerned, it is not in dispute that deceased was aged about 19 years as on the date o[ accident and the learned Tribunal has taken the notional fi., B NNR,I MA.C.MA.Nos.35 and204 of 2020 income of the petitioner AS Rs.10,OOO/- per month. In M.A.C.M.A.No.22Bl of 2O13 (un-reported judgment) the Division Bench of this Court has fixed the notional monthly income of a B.Tech [V year student as Rs.15,000/-p.m. However, in the present case, the deceased was having two more years to complete the Engineer Course. In B. Ramulanzn;ma. a. B.Rannulamlrr.a u, M/s. Venkatesh Bus Union, rep. bg A.M. Velu Mudaligar and anothef, this Honble Court held as: "As far as the students, uho completed or in ftnal Aear or last semester of B.Tech., 8.8., B.C.A., M.Tech., M.8., or M.B.A., M.C.A., etc. courses and who died in motor accidents or sustained permanent disability, their salaries also can be frxed on the basrs of the salary of their classmates when they entered into jobs. Some perientage sag e.g. 10o/o per Aear can be deducted in respect of the students studging III gear or .I[ year as the case mag be."

17. In Latha. Wadhuta us. State of Biha€ wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated by the Court and can be assessed considering the ground realities. The learned Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased. @ Rs.10,'OO0/- per month appears to be meager, hence considering the ground. realities and the 2 zoog (6) ALD 684 (DB) 3 zoot(e) scc 197 ,d ,/-'_\ 9 M.A.C.M A.Nos.35 antl 204 ffi above judgrnent cited supra and facts of the case, this Court deem it appropriate to enhance the monthly income of the deceased from Rs. 10,0o0/- tc Rs.15,oo0/-. However, the deceased was 3.d year student and two yoars studies was remaining to complete the Engineering course, hence considering the above judgment,2oo/o has to be deducted in respect cf the deceased income, therefore the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs. 12,OOO /- (Rs.15,O00 - 2O%).

18. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to reassess the compensati<>n by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs. |2,OOO/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Prunag Sethi Judgment (cited supra) and considering the age of the deceased as 19 years which is not disputed nor rebutted by either of the parties, an additional 4Oo/o of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.16,goo/- (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.4,8o0/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.12,0l,600/- (Rs.16,80ol- x 12), out of which, rl2 has to be deducted to'rards h.e p"t.onal expenses of the deceased was bachelor. 10 {NIU MA.C.MA.Nos.35 aild 204 of 29]! [, Then the actual .annual net income would be Rs. 1,O0,BO0l - (Rs.2,O l,600 l- (-) R". 1,00,800 / -l tor assessing the compensation.

19. As per the column No.4 of Table prescribed in the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Scrla Verma a. Delhi Transport Corporationa, and considering the age of the deceased as 19 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '18'. Thus, the totai loss of dependency to the claimants '*,ould come to Rs.18 ,14,4001- (1,00,800 /'x 18) (Annual lncome x relevant Multiplier)'

20. The claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,i50/- (Rs.15,0001- * lOoh + 1O7o) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + l}oh + l}%l towards funeral expenses, as per Pranag Sethi's Judgment (cited'supra).

21. Further, considering the claimant Nos.1 & 2 being the parent of deceased, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.96,BOO/- (Rs.48,400/- each) under the head of 'loss of filial consortium' as per Pranag Sethi's Judgnent (cited suPra) 420O9ACJ 1298(SC) f,"i 11 NA,EJ MA.C.MA.N o s.35 a nd 2!7 oI 2020 c) Consid:ring the above assessment mad'e by this Court' appellants would be entitled to as follows: It I I I i ; I I I I i I I I i. II I : I v) ) Annual Int:ome (of the deceased) iR".12,000 t- X 12 = Rs.l,44,oool- Total Anrual [ncome : Annual Income + Future ProsPects (Annual Income X 4Oo/ol : Rs- I,44,coo I - * Rs'57'6oo/- Rs.2,O1,600/- iii) Annual D:PendencY deduction towards personal expenses of the decease d Total Annual Income - 5-o"o Rs. I,O0,BOO/- , dlncV x APPlied Rs.2,0l,600/ (-) Rs' 1,00'800/- Total DePendencY : Annual DePen VtuttiPtier = Rs.1,0O,8O0/- x 1B Claimants' entitlement towards Loss of Estate + Funeral ExPen consorttum = Rs.18,15,1/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs'96'$OO = conventional heads = ses + Ioss of sPousal _- -) Rs.18,14,4OO1' I Rs.1,33,100/-r l Total Rs.19,47,5OO/- _-. _. l- 23 ThelearnedTribunalhasarvardedtherateclfinteresti.e',at9oh per annum, which needs no interference However, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to interest @ 7'5 o/o ott the enhanced a.mount only' ( ( \ \

24.Accordingly,theM.A.C.M.ANo.35of2o2ofiledbytheInsurance Companyispartlyallowedinsofarasinterestportiononenhanced amount is (loncerTred and other ground raised by the learned counsel for ) I I ._ . ..--; ---.. I I ,1 I L2 ucsl.ulrililllr2affr% the Insurance company is rejected. The appeal filed by the claimants i.e., M.A.C.M.A. No.2o4 of 2o2o is aflowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 16,SO,000/_ to Rs.19,47,SOO/_ (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Forty seven Thousand and Five Hundred Rupees onlyf with interest at the ratc (@ 7.s o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shatl be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw .the same without furnishing any surety. There shalr be no order as to costs. 25. Miscellaneou s petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ 6 //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER 1' The chairman' Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum principal District Judge, ; Hi.3H?J1J1ryji[Li^ilPo -**rqqqte ropue] I p,xs BB B;[! cHAr.ronAEEKifRt REDbvE6Erilioov Advocate ropuc] To, GE/PSL C t f I t STAI E r. rL 1B rtB 2u6 C,b O O

1. I t.' HIGH COURT DATED:27t0612025 COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.35 of 2020 & M.A.C.M.A. No.204 OF 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA No.35 OF 2020 WITHOUT COSTS AND PARTLY ALI.OWING THE MACMA No.2O4 OF 2O2O WITHOUT COSTS $ [ 3443 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA AND L M.A.C.M.A. No.35 OF 2020 Between: M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd,, rep. by its Claims Manager, 4-1-327 to 337, lV Floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids Road, Hyderabad - 500 001. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 AND

1. Pala Padma Wo. Mohan, aged 42 years, Occ. Pharmacist.

2. Pala Mohan, S/o. Narsimha, aged 45 years, Occ. Assistant Engineer, Both are R/o. Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda dist, presently residing at Sai Dwarakapuri Colony, Cherlapally, Nalgonda Town.

3. Shaik Ghouse, s/o. Arzat, ased 55 years, occ. oiivelSiltji8ilyrffJ'tiTffF 28X 9601, R/o. 9-4-2918, Old Bowenpally, Hasmathpur, L.B.Nagar, . Kukatpally, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy district - 500 072. 4. Mukesh Pareek, S/o. Shanthilal Pareek, aged Not known, Occ. Business and owner of Auto bearing No. AP 28X 9601, R/o. 11-13-24, PR Nagar, Zinakalwada, Moosapet, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy district. .RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS.I & 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 29.08.2019 passed in MVOP No.822 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. 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 SRl. T MAHENDER RAO, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY GOPI REDDY, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 & 2 and none appeared for Respondents No.3 & 4. UI.A.C.M.A . No.204 OF 2020 Between:

1. Pala Padma, Wo Mohan, aged about 41 years, Occ.Pharmacist 2. Pala Mohan, S/o Narsimha, aged 44 years, Occ. Asst Engineer Both are residents of Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda Diskict. presenfly residing at Sai Dwarakapuri colony Cherlapally Nalgonda. AND _.APPELLANTS/CLATMANTS '1. Shaik Ghouse, S/o Afzal, aged 54 years, Occ. Driver, R/o Old Bowinpallv Hasnratpur L.B,Nagar, Kukatpally, Balnagar, Ranga reddy District. _2. $q!l'esh Pqleek, S/o Shanthilal Pareek, Age, Ngt Known, eec. Business, Ryo P.R-llagar, Zinkalwada, Moosapet, Balanagar, Ranga reddy District, Rari!a Reddy District.

3. Reliarlce General lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep. by its Claiams Manager.4-1-327 to 337, lV floor, Sagar Plaza, Abida Road, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPON DENTS Appr:al filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 29.08.2019 passed in O.P.No.822 of 2015, the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. This,rppeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the.udgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hear.ing the argument of SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY GOPJ REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondents No.1 & 2 and SRl. T MAHENDER RAO, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That :he Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeat M.A.C.M.A No.35 of 2020 be and is hereby partly allowed. in so far as interest portion on enhanced amount is concerned and other ground raised by the learned counsel for the lnsurance Company is rejected.

2. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal M.A.C.M.A No.35 of 2020 he and is hereby partly allowed.

3. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs. 16,50,000| to Rs.19,47,500^ (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Rupees Only) with interest at the rate @ 7.5 o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. That the respondents be and are hereby directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

5. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal.

6. That on such deposit by the respondents, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety.

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal llTrue Copyll SD/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum Principal District Judge, Nalgonda.(with records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies. qE/PSL % / , HIGH COURT DATED:27,'06/2025 COMMON OECREE MACMA.No.35 of 2020 & M.A. c.M.A. No.204 OF 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA No.35 OF 2020 WTTHOUT COSTS AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA No.2O4 OF 2O2O WITHOUT cosTs )-b