The High Court · 2025

CounselfortheAppellants:Ms.P.BharathiforSriKrishnaKishoreKowur Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar The Court delivered the fotlowing: JUDGMENT ,uryry:.f & THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUI AR M.A.C.M.A.No.1398 ol 2o24 JUDGMENT: Hearcl Smt P Bharathi' representing Sri Krislt I t Kovvuri, learnecl ctrun sel for the appellants and S t Kumar, Iearned c:outtse I for the respondents' Kishort: K Ajal'

2. This appeal rrrtses out of the order passed b' the Motor Accic!cnt Claims Tribunal cum-l Additional Chief Jucll;t ' Citv Civil Courts at Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to crs hc learnetl trial Court) in Irl V'O P No' 141 of 2022 ' datcd 0'06 2024 u,here by the leiirnt:d trial Court allorved the claim ir t part to tl-t c ' extentofRs.l2,55,oo0/-alongwithproportionat3costsand interest 'I'he facts lcadrng to hle the O'P before the earned trial 3, Corrrt art: that on 14'OA'2O21' at around 7:3O a l ' when the cleccased Karrela Bagesh, along with three other i bourers was unloading sancl from the lorry bearing No'TS O6 tJC ' 1 iT At Lhat time, the driver of the Mahindra goods Auto bearin: No'TS 07 UJ 83 12, proceeding from Gandimaisamma to Bachtrlll lly; drovt: his auto in a rash and negligent manner and dasherl I le lorry' As a result,thedeceasedsustainedheadinjuryand-.eotherthree u.orkers also sustained grievous injuries' AII r f them were -l 2 immediately shifted to Osmania Hospital for treatment. However, Karrella Bagesh succumbed to his injuries on the same day i.e., on 14.O8.2O21

4. The parents of the deccased approached the learned Tribunal sceking a claim of compensation of Rs.2O,O0,O00/- against the respondent No. 1 to 3, jointly and severally together wilh 24oh interest per annum from the date of accident till the date ol realisation.

5. Respondent No.2-insurance company filcd a countcr statin6l thc respondent-insurance compan], does not admit issuance of Insurance vide Tax Invoice No. and date lor thc period from 2l .lO.2O2O to 20.lO.2O2l subject to Section 64 VB.

6. It rvas further contended that it is a mandatory duty of the insured/ respondent No. 1 to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time and place of the accident. Therefore, denicd the claim against the company.

7. Based on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following three issues:- 1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of the uictim uiz. Karella Bages\ due to rash and negligent diuing of the Auto bearing No.TS 07 UJ 8312 bg its driuer? +ffiE@t. ..-; - i. ',/ .: ,/ / l\ 3 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to ang atr tensation' and if so. what amount and from u)hom? 3) To uthat re[ieP

8. On bchalf o[ the claim:lnts, PW 1 and PW-2 \\ | '(] cxllmirtcd and Ex.AL to Ai0, Ex.XL were marked on beirall f the Court u'hereas on behalf of responclent No.2 none \('cl : examined' Howevcr, !lx.Bi, rvhich is a copy of the policy was rrt rked'

9. Learued l'ribunal basing on the matenal rvailable on rccord, calne to a coltclusiol-t that tl-re deceased wzrs i 3ed a'bout 20 vcars and the multiplier is 18, thereby calculatinll t ndcr varlous hcarls to tite cxt(rnL of Rs. I2,55,000/- along with 7 i; ir interest per annum. Aggrievcd by ttre same, the claimants fil':' the present appcal secking c.)ml)ellsalion. 1(). Smt. P.Bharathi, Iearned counsel for l1 e appellants contencls that tire Tribunal ought to have 1ranted l-otal compensatiolr ol Rs.2O,00,OO0/- as claimed b1. t re appellants, tou,ards the interest of compensation since the dece rse<l was :r'ged 2O years at the time of the accident. On account c I the untimely death of the clcccased, the appellants suffered hardship and thereby pleaded to enhance the compensation in tr: ms of the ratio laicl dorvn b1' thc Hon'ble Supreme Court reported 1t (2009) a SCC >1< 4