The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Dissatished with the compensation au'z r led by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum V II Additional District Judge, Miryalguda (for short, "the '1 ribtrnal") in O.P.No.41 of 2013, dated O9.O3.2015, the claim letitioners in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seekins r nhirncentent of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties lL, reirrafter be referred as thev u,ere arrayed before the learned Tril unal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitio:- :rs, u.ho are parents and -r ounger sisters of Late Mohammer I Sharfudclin (hereinafter referred as the deceased') filed a p,, ition uncler Section 166 r lw Section 14O of the Motor Vehi<.le ; Ar:t. l ()gg r/n, Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 see,tr Lng grant of compensation of Rs.5,OO,OOO / - tor the death of tht ler:easecl rn a motor vehicle accrdent that took place on 16. 1 L lO I O. Ir is stated by the petitioners that on 16.11.2010, u,hen r re deceased ancl his lriend-Salr,ed Assu started from H,yderaba,li t 7.00 p_m. on motorc,r,cle bearing No.AP-29-AJ-4354 in order lc so to their Kukkadam i,illage, u.herein, the deceased acted as r i ler anrl his ) \tA.pa N. )139.{ 2A l6 .-\ *:1 \l \! friend as pillion rider, at about 8.OO p.m., when they reached near Malkapuram Village of Choutuppal Mandal, one Lorry bearing No.AP-24-V-O378 r.t,hich came in opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased along '..r'ith the pillion rider sustained injuries and was shifted to Choutuppal Hospital in 108 Ambulance and whiie undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries and the pillion rider Sa11'ed Assu shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment arrd he u'as luckily saved.

4. Based on a complaint given by one of the petitioners, Police of Choutuppal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.259 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 3O4-A and 338 lPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of crime Lorry on account of his rash and negligent driving. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased used to 5. work in the A. P. Security Services an d earn a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month and contribute the same for maintenance of their family. Due to untimely death of thc deceased, the petitioners lost their bread u'inner and became destitute' As q, 3 such, they hled claim petition seeking compensalir r against the respondents 1 &, 2, u,ho are the owner and ins r rer of crime Lorrl bearing No.AP 24 V 0378.

6. Respondent No. 1/Owner of crime lorry rema t cd ex parte

7. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company file,l its counter contending that the driver of crime vehicle do t r t have valid driving license at the time of accident; that the crirl vehicle u'as not insured u'it h any policy and that there wars contributorv negligence on pzrrt of the deceased in occurrence r-r' tccident. As such, the ou'nr:r and insurer of motorcycle are lial-l ' to be made as necessary parties to the petition. He further ci) rtended that the claim of compensation is excess and exc -bitant and therefore prayed to dismiss the clairn against it.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both partie; the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the deceased died in the rrr tor uehit:le accident happened due to raslt , nd neglrqent diuing of the diuer of I < rry beo nnq N o. A P-2 4-V-O37 8? (i0 Whether the petitioners are entitled to tl,tm conr.pensation? If so, to what amount t rtd .frorn ruhorn? (iii) To t Lthat relief N8K ) MA.MA No )13eDl )416 \ g. Before the Tribunal, on behatf of the petitroners, PWs 1 & 2 u,ere examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/lnsurance Company, no rvitness lvas examined; however Ex.Bl-Copy of insurance polic\' '.^'as marked with consent. 1O. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allou'ed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.2,54,OO0/ - along with interest @ 7 .5% per annum to the 1$ petitioner alone payable by Respondent No.2 only. Being not satisfied rvith the said compensation amount, the petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

11. Heard arguments submitted by Smt.Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar' Iearned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2/[nsurance Company. Perused the record including the grounds of Appeal'

12. The contentions of the learned Counsel for appellants are that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the lact that the appellants 2 to 4, being the father and sisters of the deceased, are also entitled for compensation. Learned counsel also contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased Ca) Rs.7,OOO/- per month, ought to have \ - 5 alvarcled future prospects and also ought to havt' qralted more amount tou,ards funeral expenses, transportatior charges and ought to have granted interest @ 9% per ar rum on the compensation amount and therefore requested to allow the Appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation

13. On the other hand, learned counsel f,) respondent No.2/[nsurance Company conten(led that the lea: red Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awar<l,' reasonable compensalion u'hich do not require any furthelnhancement and therefore praved to dismiss the Appeal.

14. Now the point that emerges for determinatlol) rs , Whether tLrc appellants are entitled for enhu < zment of compensation? POINT:- 15. Since there is no dispute about the mann : of accident and liabilitv of the respondents and since the findrr gs arrived at bv the Court bejorv on those aspects were not chal enged, tl-rere is no necessitv to again decide the above said i;pects. l'he present Appeal has been hled b1- the appellants on l' u.ith regard to enhancement of compensation.

16. Learned counsel for the appellants conten( 3d that the Iearned Tribunirl ought to havt' taken the in: rme of the 6 MACLIA Na ))ssal)o16 deceased (a1 Rs.7,OOO/ per month arrd ought to have au'ardecl future prospects to the income of the deceased.

17. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that though the petitioners contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.7,00O/- per month by working in A.P.Security Services, but the-v failed to produce any document in proof of his employment. Even the petitioners failed to file any certificate showing the educational qualification of the deceased. Hence, learned Tribunal, in the absence of documentary evidence or any oral evidence connecting the job of the petitioner, did not consider the point that the deceased used to work in A. P.Security Services and earn a sum of Rs.7,OOO/- per month. Considering the fact that tlre deceased being 24 years as held in inquest and post-mortem reports and he being able bodied person and can work as a labour and earn not less than Rs.3,OOO/- per month, the Tribunal fixed his income (a) Rs.3,00O/- per month. This Court, upon considering the date of accident, age of the deceased and bv following the parameters iaid down by the Hon"ble Supreme Court Ramo,chandro,PPc Vs' Manager, Rogal Sundardrn Alliance Insurance ComPdnA Limited.,t u,herein the notional income of a coolie u'orker in the year 2004 was hxed at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month, '1:orr1 r: scc z:o I - 7 \iacMA Nc 2139112016 hereby opine that the notional income of tL r deceased (a) Rs.4,5OO/- per month is justihed 18, Learnecl counsel for the appellants cont€r ded that the Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the ncome of the deceased. This Court, taking into consideration th : judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranag Sethi I , hereby add 40% r c rards future prospects to the income of the deceased for the rl r:eased being 24 vears old as reflected in inquest report anrl PME report. Upon addition of the same, the net monthlt, I come of the deceased comes to Rs.6,3O0/ Since the d,: easecl being Bachelor, 50% is deducted towards his persorr, I and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, his net mo Lthlv income comes to Rs.3,150/ and the annual incon ' comes to Rs.37,8OO/-. After applying multiplier '18', the rotal loss of earnings on account of the death of the deceased n tuld come to Rs.6,8O,aOOl-

19. Learned counsel for appellants contended th I the learned Tribunal ough t to have awarded Rs.25,OOO/ rorr rrds funeral expenses and Rs.5,OOO/- tou,ards transportation <.lr rges 8 MA.M^ No rtse.l ,.)t

20. A perusal of quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal had awarded onll' a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges. This Court, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. VsPranag Setht & others3, herebl, au'ard a sum of Rs.33,OOO/- tovvards conventional heads. Hence, the appellants are entitied for a total compensation of Rs.7,15,400/- which is calculated as under:- S.No. I I J I 1 2 4 5 6 7 Name of the Head Awarded Tribunal Arrarded this Court Monthlv income Rs.3,OOO/- Rs.4,5OO/ - 4Oo/" Addition of future ros eCtS Deduction of 5O7o for the deceased being bachelor Application multiplier Transport charges Rs.6,3OO Rs.18,OOO/- Rs.37,8OO/ Rs.6,8O,4OOl Rs.2,52,OOO/- (multiplier applied is 14) Rs.2,OO0/- Conventional heads Rs.33,O00/ TOTAL Rs.2,54,00o/- Rs.7,15,4O0 1_ 21 . Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the appellants 2 to 4, ..1+ -ter1, --=l:illqi!'-r.r-F€- - 9 being the father and sisters of the deceased, ar er-rtitled for com pensatlon 22 . In this regard, it is relevant to mention th z t t hough the petitioner No.2/father of the deceased is an earnlr g member, it does not automatically disqualify him fic l compensation for the death of his son. Even if tl.r,: father is not claiming depending financiall_r, on the earnings of his son, . t. is entitled for compensation under the ',loss to estate',. The : rmpensation is granted for the pol ential earnings, u.hich the de c :ased rvould have contributed to the family and estate had h r been alive. Further, it is settled lau, that the parents of the r eceased are alwavs considered as dependent upon their chilrl en and are entitled to compensation.

23. With regard to petitioners 3 and 4, they I eing minor sisters and having lost the companionship and afie _-tion of the deceased, are entitled for compensation under the 1r, :rd of ,Filial consortium' though thev are not financiall-y deper L, cnt on the earnings of the deceased.

24. Since it is settled principle of larv that the aJ,1 ellants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as ;r l.luclged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case betuee r Nagappa I I MACMA No 2)39of)O16 \ Vs.Gurudayal Singh and othersa , this Court, by considering the above judgment, deems fit and proper to allou, the Appeal.

25. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the quantum of compensation a$,arded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,54,0OO/- to Rs.7,l5,4OOl vvhich shall carry interesr (4

7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent No.2 alone as held bv the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same in 4 equal shares by paying deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.

26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if an1,, shall stand closed SD/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum ll Addl. District SECTION OFFICER Judge at Mirayalguda.

2. One CC to SRI ANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI Kondadi Ajay Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL "__.E4\_ ,_ ._ #s.u:!, ' lit.]l'';i ) HIGH COURT DATED:01/0712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2189 of 2016 .+. ._i:\. 'aI ),, z C) v. ,'r ,l ! 0t[ 206 k J () ,,9 '\..* \. ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS b \\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3253 ] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTO R ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2189 OF 2016 Between:

1. MD.GOUSHIYA BEGUM Wo. Latheef, aged about 44 years, Occ: Housewife, 2. Md. Latheef Beg, S/o. Sharfuddin, Age 47 years, Occ Labour 3 Parveen, D/o. Latheef, Age 22 years, Occ Labour 4. Azeeza, D/o. Latheef, Age 18 years, Occ Labour All areRl/o. Kukkadam Village of Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. AND ...APPELLANTS/PETITINERS

1. S VENKATRAM REDDY, S/o. Chenna Reddy, Aged : Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.NO. 5-8-224, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Claims Manager, Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd, 4th Floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad vide Cover Note No 109001302566, valid from 30-10-2010 to midnight ot 29-01-2011. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, aggrieved by the Order passed by the Honble VlllAddl. District Judge at Miryalguda in O.P.No.41 ol 2013 dated- 09-03-2015 for enhancement of compensation. 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 arguments of SRl. ANNAPURNA SREERAM, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No l and SRI Kondadi Ajay Kumar appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 2 ThattheMotorAccidentCivilMiscellaneusAppealil;herebyallowedby enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded i 1 the Rs.2,54,0b0/- to Rs.7,15,4001 which shall carry interest @ 7 5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization pa) lble by respondent No.2 alone as held bY the Tribunal -Tribunal That the Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to depos t the compensation amount within a period of 2 months from the date of re: ript of a copy of this judgment.Uponsuchdeposit,theappellantsareherebyentitledtowithdraw the same in 4 equal shares by paying deficit Court fee.

3. There shall be no order as to costs

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/-II .OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSI{ TANT REGISTRAR llTrue Copyll To !- The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V l I Addl District Judge at MiraYalguda. SECTION OFFICER !- Two CD Copies. GE/PSLI HIGH COURT DATED;01/0712025 I DECREE MACMA.No.2189 of 2016 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t\ J I