The High Court · 2025

Gounsel for the Appellant : MS. I MAAMU VANI Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6 : SRI JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.7 to 9 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT o THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MACMA.No.S of 2O22 JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act) by the Insurance Company arising out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, the TribunalJ in MVOP.No.15 of 2O18 dated 24'O8'2O2L'

2. Respondent No.l herein - petitioner No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein - petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the sons and respondent Nos.S and 6 herein - petitioner Nos.S and 6 are the married. daughters of late Mohammed Allauddin'

3. Respondent Nos.l to 6 herein - petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.35,OO,00O/- for the death of the deceased Mohammad Allauddin, who died on 08.11 .2017 in a road traffic accident, against the driver - respondent No.7 herein - respondent No'1, owner - respondent No.S herein - respondent No.2, Insurance Company - appellant herein - respondent No.3 and the Managing Director TSRTC - respondent No.9 herein - respondent No.4. I / I I 2lt3 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2022 4- on 07.1r.2oL7 at about 10.30 &.ffi., Mohammad Allauddin was going towards new bus stand by walk, the bus bearing No.TS- i5-uc-1078 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from behind and hit him, as a result Mohamma<l Allauddin fell dorvn and received severe multiple injuries, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy, from there to Balaji Hospital, later referred to citizen Hospital and on

08.11.2017 at 1.00 p.fl., he succumbed to the injuries. Deceased was aged about 59 years at the time of accident, was hale and healthy, \ /a.s a retired sI of Police and drawing monthly pension of Rs.35,000/ -, also earning Rs. 15,00o I - per month by doing nursery business and in all the deceased used to earn Rs.5o,o00 /- per month, contribute the same to the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased the claimants have suffered menta.l pain, agony and lost their love and affection. on the complaint, ps Sangareddy has registered a case in crime No.24T of 2017 against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 304-A Ipc and prayed to allow the O.P. 5 Driver and owner (respondent Nos .T and, g herein) remained ex-parte before the Tribunal

6. Appellant herein aconpnded that at the respondent No.3 filed counter and time of the accident policy number ,rt"n o 3/ t3 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2022 mentioned by the claimants (respondent Nos.l to 6 herein) in the claim petition does not tally with the series of the policy issued by them and for want of correct policy particulars they denied the allegation that the vehicle was insured with them. Driver was not having subsisting licence to drive the bus at the time of accident and they are not aware of criminal case proceedings launched against the driver.

7. TSRTC Musheerabad, Hyderabad (respondent No.9 herein) filed counter, denied the age, occupation, health condition and income of the deceased and also the manner in which the accident has occurred. t No.2 (respondent No.8 herein) is the registered owner of the bus and the same is validly insured with the appellant herein - respondent No.3 and they do not have any liability to pay compensation, in view of the fact that they are only custodian of the bus and the claim of respondent Nos.l to 6 - petitioners is excessive and exorbitant, prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. The Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle? 2l Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what amount and from whom? 3) To what result? BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2O22 1

9. Respondent No.2-peitioner No.2 was examine(l as PWl, also examined PW2-Mohammad Abdul Nayeem and got marked Exs.Al to A8. No evidence was adduced by the insurance company, Ex.Bl- policy was marked.

10. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, coupled with Exs.Al to A8 has partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.2O,65,4621 - to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 - petitioners along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5%o per annum from the date of filing the petition

129.12.2O l7l till the date of realization. 1 1. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that major sons of the decease<1 i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were employed, respondent Nos.S and 6 herein - petitioner Nos.S and 6 are married daughters of the deceased and thev are not dependants, though they could claim as legal heirs and they cannot claim under the head of loss of dependency. Respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 - petitioner No.4 could only be treated as dependents, contribution tou'ards personal expenses has to be deducted to I l3,a and not I / +tn The Tribunal orlrrt to have seen that the deceased was retired employee and drawing pension, he was not entitled for future prospects. PWI has .l' &- o s/ 13 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2022 admitted that he is earning Rs.44,O00/- per month. Respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1 is receiving family pension which has to be deducted from the compensation and prayed to set aside the award. L2. Appellants'counsel submitted that respondent Nos.7 to 9 are not necessary parties to the present appeal since the Insurance company has challenged the quantum and other heads awarded by the Tribunal.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l to 6 - petitioners submits that the Tribunal has proper$ appreciated the facts of the case and rightly award.ed the compensation, which requires no interference of this court and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the petitioners have liled their written respondent Nos.1 to 6 submissions. The decisions cited by the counsels will be referred in the succeeding ParagraPhs.

15. Heard learned counsel, perused the record.

16. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned award passed by the Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, requires interference of this Court or not? / / I Jii 6/ L3 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2022

17. Admittedly, by the date of filing the O.p. respondent Nos.S and 6 - petitioner Nos.S and 6 were already married, respondent Nos. 2 ancl 3 - petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were shourn as private employees, respondent No.4 - petitioner No.4 is shown as student and respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1 is shou,n as houservife.

18. As per the claim petition the deceased was drawing a monthly pension of Rs.35,00o/- and was also earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing nursery business, in total he used to earn Rs.So,ooo/- per month. The evidence of pwl is also the same to that effect. Pwl has admitted. in his cross-examination that he was earning Rs.44,000/- per month. The earning of pwl is more than the pension drawn by the deceased.

19. The only point raised by the appellant in the appeal is that the married daughters are entitled for compensation for the amount as prescribed under section 14o of the Act and they are not entitled for loss of estate. 2o.l In Sebastiani Lakra and others vs. National Insurance company Limited and anothert (three Judge Bench) the Supreme court observed that the MACT was right in not taking into consideration the future prospects in the pecuhar facts and circurAstances of the case, they are not entitled to ciaim y'nother -r ) t lzorsl 17 scc 46s f) 7lL3 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2O22 arnount at the rate of l5o/o by way of future prospects. The above said decision is distinguishable from the facts of the present case and the same is not aPPlicable. 2O.2 In Manjuri Bera (sMT) Vs. oriental Insurance company Limited and Another2 the Supreme Court held that the legal representative namely his daughter was entitled to the said compensation under no fault liability in terms of Section 14O of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2O.g In Krishna and Others Vs. Tek Chand and Others3 the Supreme Court held that there cannot be a duplication in a payments or a windfall owning to a misfortune. 2L. l,earned counsel for respondent Nos. I to 6 - petitioners contended that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are private employees as such they are also depending on the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly deducted L l+t:' and the compensation awarded is appropriate.

22.L In MAGMA General lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Othersa, Supreme Court observed that parental consortium is to be granted to the child upon the premature death of the Parent. ' (zooz) 10 scs 643 t st-p (c) No.soE+.qr 2019 of supreme court of lndia dated o5-o2.2o24 o (zots) 18 scc 130 8l13 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2022 f r--i

22.2 In surekha vs. santoshs (three Judge Bench) the supreme court observed that the court should" not take hyper technical approach :rnd ensure that just compensation is a.warded to the effected person or the claimants.

22.3 [n National Insurance company Vs. Birender and others6 the Supreme court held that even major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact wherther the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the d.eceased or not in accordance with law. 23- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under: Sl.No Name of the head Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1 2 3 4 \ Income (As per Ex.A8) per month Rs.21 ,422 / - Annual income Rs.2,57,O641- uction towards personal I /4tn ded expenses Add 15% Future Prospects (21,422 x 12) Rs. 1,92,795I - 2,57,064 - U2,57,064 x$/a)=64,26ol/ Rs.2,2 1,718 / - L,92,799 [{1,92,798 x 15%) =28,9201 + '1zozt1 16 scc467 u lzozoy 11 scc 3sG 9l13 BRMR,J MACMA.No. 5 of 2022 5

6. 7 8 Multiplier Loss of estate Funeral expenses Loss of consortium Total Rs.19,95,4621- 12.21.718 x9l Rs.15,OO0l- Rs.15,0O0/- Rs.40.O00/- Rs.2O,65,462/- Further, the Tribunal apportioned the awarded amount and awarded Rs.15,65,4621- to the respondent No.1 - claimant No.1 and awarded Rs.1,00,00O/- to each respondent Nos.2 to 6 claimant Nos.2 to 6.

24. In Deep Shikha and Another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and OthersT the Supreme Court observed at paragraph Nos.13 and 14, as under: "13. Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she norn'has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased. Sections 166 and 168 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the Claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the record that Appellant No. t has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased.

14. Therefore, it is our opinion the High Court correctly relied on Manjuri Bera while holding that Appellant No.1, as the legal representative of the deceas€tl, nill only be entitled to compensation envisaged in Section 14O of ,/ '2025 scc online Sc 1o9o r I 1Ol l3 BRMR, J MACMA.No. Sof 2O22 the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as liability under the same cloes not cease to exist in the absence of dependency."

25. In Seema Rani and Others Vs. the Oriental [nsurance Company Limited and Others8, the Supreme Courr- has awarded loss of consortium to the married daughter. Hence respondent Nos.S and 6, who are the married daughters of the deceased are also entitled for loss of consortium.

26. The earning of PW1 is double the amount of the deceased pension i.e., Rs.2 1,442/- and he is earning sufficientty. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of pwl with r:egard to the earning capacity of respondent No.3 herein - petitioner No.3. In the absence of any material it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 is not depending on the income of the deceased. Pwi (respondent No.2 herein - petitioner No.2) is aged about 30 years by the date of filing the claim petition, as he is earning double the amount of the deceased and" he cannot termed as a dependent of his father.

27. Respondent No.1 is the wife. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the sons, who are depending on the income of the deceasr:d. Hence as per Smt. sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport corporatione where the number of dependents are two to three the personal and living expenses of the deceased be taken at L f 3ra. Responden/wos.S and ,/ Scc*gnt.ine sC 283 '1zoos; 6 scc 121 tI 1ll13 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2O22 6 - petitioner Nos.S and 6 are entitled at the rate of Rs.50,O00/- each as per the decision in Deep Shikha's caseT and they are also entitled for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.4O,OOO/- each. The calculation arrived is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head 1 2 3 4

5. 6 7 8 Income (As per Ex.AS) per Deduct 1/3'o personal expenses towards Annual income Add 15% future prospects (as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethilo) Multiplier 9' Loss of estate Compensation awarded by this Court Rs.21 ,4221 - Rs.14,2821- 2t ,422 - l2L ,422 x (t l3l = 7 laOI Rs. 1,7 L,384 I {14,282 x l2l Rs.1,97,0921- L,71,384 + ((1,71,384 x 15%) = 2s,7O8l-l Rs.17,73,8281- (L,97,O92 x9l Rs.15,0O0/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,0OO/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,OOO l- each Total Rs.2,40,OAO l- (4O,OO0 x 6) Rs.20,43,8281-

28. Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9o/o per. annum as per decision of the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra's case'. 'o (zorziTo scc 680 i 12lt3 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2022

29. In the result, MACMA.No.S of 2022 is allowecl as under: a) The impugned award dated 24.09.2021 passed 1n MVOP.No.15 of 20 18 stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the 'fribunal i.e., Rs.20,65,4621- is modified to Rs.2O,43,g2g/- together with interest at the rate of 9oh per annum from the date of l-rling the petition till payment. c) Respondent No.l - claimant No.l is entitled to Rs.14,63,8281- and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. d) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - ciaimant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing securit5r. e) Respondent No.4 - claimant No.4 is entitled to Rs.2,oo,000/- and he is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. 0 Respondent Nos.S and 6 - claimant Nos.S and 6 are entitled to Rs.9O,OOO/-( 50,000 + 40,000) each and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing any security. .?, L3/13 BRMR, J MACMA.No. 5 of 2022 g) The appellant - respondent No.3 is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already deposited if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a sequel miscellaneous application/applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. No costs. SD'. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ ECTION OFFICER To, Court, Medak at Sangareddy-Dislrict' (with199o1ds, tt any;

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-PrinCipal-District and Sessions 2. One CC to MS. I MAAMU VANlldvocate-[OP-UC1 3. One CC to SRt. JAGATHPnT-'nrObV-XnS'i nfODY Rdvocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies GE Yv HIGH COURT DATED:1 1l0gl2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.S ot 2022 i I ,P lr.iE s 2 1 l'l0lJ 20[ () * ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,ee ,r7 @ h@5 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER N/VO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCE EOUS APPEAL NO: 5 OF 2022 Between: The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep. Towers, G Block, SP Road, Secunderabad - 500 003 by its Manager, V Floor, Surya ..RESPONDENT NO.3/APPELLANT AND '1. Qmt Ghousiya Begum, Wo Late Mohammed Allauddin, Aged 50 years, Occ. House hold,

2. Mohammed Jaffer, S/o. Late Mohammed Allauddin, Aged 30 years, Occ. Private employee.

3. Mohammed Saddam Hussain, S/o Late Mohammed Allauddin, Aged 23 years, Occ. Private employee.

4. Mohammed Mustafa, S/o Late Mohammed Allauddin, aged 20 years, Occ. Student.

5. Smt Fouzia Begum, Wo Mohammed Kaleem Pasha, D/o Late Mahammed Allauddin, Aged 27 years Occ. Household.

6. SmtArshiya Sultana, Wo Shafi Ahmed, Aged 25 years, D/o Late Mohammed Allauddin, Occ. House hold, R1 to R6 R/o H.No.5-1-10/3, Shanti Nagar, Sangareddy Town, Mandal and District502001.

7. M. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Burgaiah, Aged 26 years, Occ.Driver of bus bearing No. TS 15 UC 1078, R/o. H.N0.2-69, Mansanpally Village, Andole Mahdal, Sangareddy District. B. Surkanti Mahender Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Business and owner of Private bus bearing No.TS 15 UC 1078, R/o H.No.2-6-104, Ramnagar, Sangareddy Town and District.

9. The Regi onal ing D irector, TSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Sangareddy Diskict Medak. ...RESPONDENTS NO.l, 2 & 4/ Respondenb Appeal filed under Section 't73 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 24.08.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 15 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the ft/otor Accidents CIaims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy District. 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 MS. l. MAAMU vANl, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI K. JAGATHPAL REDDY, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 to 6, none appeared for Respondent No.7 to g. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1' That the ft/otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby Allowed.

2. That the compensation awarded by the tribunal i.e., Rs.20,6s,462l_ is modified to Rs.20,43,928t- together with interest at the raie of go/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. 3' That the Respondent No.1 - Claimant No.1 be and is hereby entifled to Rs.14,63,8281- and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. 4' That the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - claimant Nos.2 and 3 be and are hereby entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security-

5. That the Respondent No.4 - claimant No.4 is entifled to Rs.2,00,000/- and he is hereby permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. 6' lha-t the Respondent Nos.S and 6 - claimant Nos.S and 6 and entifled to Rs.90,000/- (50,0001- + 40,000) each and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon witnoui furnishing any slcurity. 7 ' That the appellant - respondent No.3 be and is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already deposited if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a'copy of this judgment.

8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal -"qtGF- --q'GFF-- llTrue Copyll / SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To

1. The MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal - cum - ll Additional District Judge, 2. Two CD Copies. Karimnagar at Jagtia. SECTION OFFICER GE/PSL Ya- ! \ HIGH COURT DATED:11109nA25 DECREE MACMA.No.S ot 2022 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS roRqeA \-\