The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstanc€s stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings including the execution if any in oP No.26 of 2OO4 on ih. filu of the MACT cr. I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad order dated 26.6.2006 pending drsposal of the above MACMA. l.A. NO: 1OF 2007 (MACMAMP. NO : 293 OF 20071 Petition under section 148 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the time of two weeks in complying of the stay orders granted in MACilIAMP.No.5352 of 2006 in MACMA.No.2264 of 2006 dt.01.11.2006' lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw her share amount of deposited amount as per decree in op.i.lo.26 of 2004 on the fite of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum I Additional Chief Judge CCC, at Secundrabad. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K S N Murthy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Sri Subbagari Sudarshan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 7 : - - - MACMA NO: 497 OF 201? Between: l.KavithaKaltrawanaWo.BalbirSingh,Widow,R/o3343,Warasiguda' Secunderabad

2. Anil Kumar Katrrawana, S/o.Balbir singh, occ: student, rep by.his. mother and - iriilirlgr"rd'rn pt neiein R/o.33-43,Warasiguda, Secunderabad' 3. Sonu Kalirawana. S/o,Balbrr Singh, Student, rep py his mother and natural - gratdirn P1 herein R/o 33-43, Warasiguda, Secunderabad' 4. Ramsingh Kalirawana, S/o.Sumer Singh, Occ: Agriculture, R/o 33-43/8' Warasiguda. Secunderabad.

5. Sevobar Kalrrawana. Wo.Ramsingh Kalirawana, Occ: Household, Rio' j43l8, Warasrguda. Secunderabad 33 ...Appellants/Petitioners I AND '1 . Mr.D-Pandu Yadav S/o.D.Shivaiah' Aged Major ' iil"-A.Nl"r-+so7i, nanga Reddy Nalar, IDPL Colony, Qutbullapur of Vehicle ^Owner [M],Ranga Reddy District

2.P.Lingam,S/o.P-Mallesh,AgedMajor,Occ:OwnerR/o'HNo9-15'l,Medchal Post, Ranga ReddY District. 3. United lndia lnsurance ComPan O/o.Divisional Office - l, United Secunderabad. v Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager india, Ramalayala Building, Paradise, (R-1 Dismissed for default vide C.O.Dt.1219/1'l) Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Subbagari Sudarshan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No'3 : Sri K S N Murthy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 &2: --- The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT --7/ // HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAM.JI M.A.C.M.A. No.2264 OF 2006 AND M.A.C.M .A.No.497 OF 20'12 COMMON JUDGMENT: I have heard Mr.K.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the appellanVinsurer in MACMA No.2264 of 2006 and for respondents in MACMA No.497 of 2012, and Mr.Subbagari Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners in MACMA No.497 of 20'12 and for respondents in MACMA No.2264 of 2006.

2. The M.A C.M A.No 2264 of 2006 has been filed by the insurer/respondent No.3 contesting the liability and quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and judgment dated

26.06.2006 in MVOP No 26 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

3. M.A.CM.A.No.497 ot 2012 has been filed by the claim petitioners aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in the self same decree and judgment. 2 NTR.,] MACl{tu_4g7 2012&2264 2006

4. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before the tribunal.

5. The case of the petitioners in brief is that on 31.07.2003 at about 11.30 p.m. while the Balbir Singh/deceased was proceeding on scooter bearing No. AP-10H-7179 near Rekulabavi on N.H.7, one DCM bearing No.AP-9V 1667 (for short, 'DCM Van') came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the scooter, which resulted in his instantaneous death

6. The petitioners by pleading that the deceased was aged about 30 years and as supervisor used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month and his death affecled their support and dependency, prayed for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence awarded compensation of Rs.4,33,000/- with proportionate costs and interest al 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the owners and the insurer of the DCM Vani respondents 1 to 3. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that though the specific pleading that the deceased was supervisor in l\Iahalakshmi Profiles at Kalakal, Medchal and used to earn a. J NTRJ A ACI1,'. _49 /- 20 12&2264 _2ffi Rs.6,0001 per month which has been substantiated by the evidence of employer/pW-2, but the tribunal erroneously restricted the salary at Rs.3,OO0/- per month. Further future prospects have not been accounted and the amounts granted under conventional heads are improper. He further pleaded that the insurer/respondent No.3 in the cross examination of the witness failed to make out any fact or circumstance to prove false implication of the vehicle and the evidence placed by the petitioners remained undisturbed in the cross examination. Thus prayed for reassessment and for granting just compensation.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer/respondent No.3 would submit that as per the first information reporUEx.A-1 the accident was caused by unknown vehicle. After one month the crime vehicle and the eyewitness were brought on to record to reap undue advantage. Further to prove existence of valid driving licence and the mechanical defects, if any, the petitioners should have examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Sub-lnspector of police/lnvestigating Officer. ln the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal should have held that the crime vehicle has been planted for the purpose of petition. Further though there is no conclusive evidence 4 MACl4As_497-20 l.lTR,] I 2E2264-2006 a proving the occupation and income, the tribunal had assessed the excessive compensation. Thus prayed for interference and to exonerate the insurer/respondent No.3.

9. I have carefully considered the rival pleadings and the materials on record 1 0. ln regard to liability, the insurer's contention is that the crime vehicle has been planted. Nonetheless the petitioners got examined eyewitness/PW-3 and placed the charge sheeVEx.A-2 wherein the police after due investigation had concluded the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident. ln the oross examination of eyewitness/PW-3 no material has been elicited. ln such position, the preliminary burden on the part of the petitioners shall be taken as discharged and if the adversary still contests the fact, onus shifts on that party to rebut and prove the asserted fact. ln the present case though the insurer/respondent No.3 participated in the trial proceedings, for the reasons best known to them maintained silence, though they got an opportunity to summon the relevant witnesses. Therefore the contention that the crime vehicle was planted remains unsubstantiated and in view of I 5 Mr&J t4Acr"lls 497 2012&2254 2006 the positive evidence placed by the petitioners, the conclusion drawn by the tribunal is found proper.

11. The age and occupation ofthe deceased are not in dispute. So far as compensation, the petitioners claimed that the deceased was supervisor in Mahalakshmi profiles, Kalakal, Medchal and was earning Rs.6,0001 per month. To prove, the petitioners got examined employer/pW-2 and marked the salary certificate/Ex.A4. The oral and documentary evidence are proving that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal simply observed that it is inclined to take Rs.3,000/_ per month as salary of the deceased, without assigning any reason. As the observation of the tribunal is against the evidence on record, Rs.6,000/- shall be taken as monthly income of the deceased. l

12. ln regard to quantum of compensation, basing on the petitioners' claim and the entries in post mortem reporUEx.A_3 the age ofthe deceased can be concluded as 30 years.

13. Having regard to the age and regular occupation of the deceased as per the directives in National lnsurance Compa4lr 6 I{TR,] MACMAS_497_2012&226{_2@6 Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and othersl ,50% of the income has to be added towards future prospects which would make the monthly income at Rs.9,000/- and annual income at Rs.1,08,000/-. Counting the dependants if 1/4th income of the deceased is deducted towards personal expenses, his contribution to the family would be of Rs.81 ,000i-. .Ihis multiplicand if multiplied with the relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased, as prescribed in the judgment of Sar/a Verma and others vs. Delhi Transpott Corporation and anothel i.e. 17, the total comes to Rs.'13,77,000/-. This amount would be the compensation for loss of dependency.

14. ln addition, as per the dictum of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others3 the petitioner No. '1 is entitled for spousal, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for parental and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are entitled for filial consortium at Rs.48,400/- each and also Rs.18,1501 towards loss of estate and Rs.18,'150/- towards funeral expenses. ' eol7) 16 scc 860 ' 2oo9 ACJ 1298 3 2021(11) scc 780 I l .t1 7 NTR,] tlACMAs_497 2012&2264_2006

15. Thus, in all the petitioners are entifled for compensation as Description Loss of dependency Spousal consortium to Rs.48,4001 petitioner No l Parental to petitioner ttlos.2 and 3 consortium @ Rs.48,400/- each I consortium @ Rs.48,400/- each to Filial petitioner Nos.4 and 5 Loss of estate Funeral expenses I I \ Amount awarded (in rupees) 13,,77,000.00 48,400.00 96,800.00 **9 I8,150.00 18,150 00 TOTAL Rs.16,55,300/- '16. Resultantly, the petitioners are entifled for compensation of Rs.16,55,300/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs fifty five thousand and three hundred only). The rate of interest and ratio of apportionment among the petitioners shall remain as per the impugned order. The respondent No.3/insurer is directed to deposit the differential compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. B NTR,] MACMtu_497_2012&2264_2006

17. Accordingly, the Award dated 26.06.2006 in M.V.O.P.No. 26 o'f 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad stands modified

18. ln the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.497 ot 2012 filed by the petitioners is allowed with costs and the M.A.C.M.A.No.2264 of 2006 filed by the insurer/respondent No.3 is dismissed without costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P. PADM ANABHA REDDY ASSI TANT REGTSTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge' ci, dirii C"rrt, Secunderabad(With reco^rds rf'anv; 6il"ic",J"sii k s t't vt"tnv Advocate [oPUC]. 5,#;;;6ri sriuus"i slo'itr''"n Reddv Advocate [oPuc] Two CD CoPies

1. 2 J 4 ADI(PlP r{_ I I i I ,l ]I ,i 'l i I HIGH COURT DATED:03 tO1t2O2S i COMMON JUDGMENT+DECRE 3 DRAFTS MACMA.No.2264 of 2006 MACMA.N o.491 of 2012 .a I c (<. o \ n-, v { .$ s* \ \ ', lrol ^( o DISM|SS|NG THE MACMA.N o.2264oF 2006 WTHOUT COSTS AND ALLOWTNG THE MACMA.N o.4gt of 2012W|TH COSTS C .rd* Vr- d{tr t \ I I I ! i ! I I I I I I I I i i I i I I , t I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI MACMA NO: 497 OF 2012 Between:

1. Kavitha Kalirawana Wo.Balbir Singh, Widow, R/o 33-43, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

2. Anil Kumar Kalirawana, S/o.Balbir Singh, Occ: Student, rep by his mother and natural guardian P1 herein R/o.33-43, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

3. Sonu Kalirawana, S/o.Balbir Singh, Student, rep by his mother and natural guardian P1 herein R/o.3343, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

4. Ramsingh Kalirawana, S/o.Sumer Singh, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.3343/8' Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

5. Seyobai Kalirawana, Wo.Ramsingh Kalirawana, Occ: Household, R/o. 3343/8, Warasiguda, Secunderabad ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1 Mr.D.Pandu Yadav S/o.D.Shivaiah, Aged Maior Owner of Vehicle 2 3 R/o.H.No.24-450/1, Ranga Reddy Nagar, IDPL Colony, Qutbullapur IM],Ranga Reddy District P.Lingam, S/o.P.Mallesh, Aged Maior, Occ Owner R/o.H.No 9-'151, Medchal Post, Ranga Reddy District. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o.Divisional Office - l, United lndia, Ramalayala Building, Paradise, Secunderabad. ( R - 1 dismissed for default vide court order dated 12-09-2011) ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,.1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.26 of 2OO4 dated.26-06-2006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, SecuMerabad. 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 Sri Subbagari Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri K S N Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and none appeared for the respondent No.1 & 2. / This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed 1 with costs; 2 That the petrtioners are entitled for compensation of Rs. 16.55,300/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs fifty five thousand and three hundred only); ! 3 That the rate of interest and ratio of apportionment among the petitioners shall remain as per the impugned order. The respondent No-3/insurer is directed to deposit the differential compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; That Award dated 26.06.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.26 of 2004 on the file of the 4 Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad stands modified; 5 That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and 6 That the appellanl be and hereby is entitled costs of Rs. 2511 to be paid by respondents. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS MACMA.No.497 of 2012 Particulars for Vakalatnama used for the Memo/Court fee for Jud ment of the Lower Court S!amps Stamps Stamps Stanrps for decree of the Lower Court Value of Co Advocate's fee (Fee Certificate not filed) Batta and Posta Translalion and Printing Charge TOTAL Stam S.No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. r used for enclosures I Rs. Ps. 05 00 10 00 02 00 02.00 22.OO 00 00 2l! q0 00 00 251 .00 //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY AQSITTANT REGISTRAR \ \t. I\ tsgcroNoFFrcER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civrl Court, Secunderabad

2. Two CD Copres Ftr HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 DECREE MACMA.No.497 ot 2012 ot -tEL4 sr4 \ +" (l']. E c * C () '.=r'2' ALLOWING THE MACMA.N o.497 of 2012 W|TH COSTS I{-P(t\ &r" I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI MACMA NO:2264 OF 2006 Between: M/S.United lndia lnsuance Co Ltd, rep by its Divil Manager The Divisional Manager, M/s.United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd., DO-|, Ramaiaya Building, Paradise,Secunderabad, Sangareedy, Medak District. .. Petitioner/Appellant AND 1 2 3 Kavitha Kalirwana W/o.Balbir Singh, Widow R/o.3343, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. Anil Kumar Kalirwana, S/o.late Balbir Singh, Student, aged 26 yrs, rep by mother and natural guardian P hereinl R/o.33-43, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. Sonu Kalirwana, S/o.late Balbir Singh, Student, aged 22 yrs, rep by mother and natural guardian P hereinl R/o.33-43, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

4. Ramsingh Kalirwana, S/o.Sumer singh, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.3-43l8, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

5. Seeyobai Kalirawana, Wo.Ramsingh Kalirwana, Occ: Household, R/o.3-43/8, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

6. D.Pandu Yadav, S/o.D.Shivaiah, Aged Major Owner of the Vehicle R/o. 24-45011 , Ranga Reddy Nagar, IDPL Colony, Qutubullapur [M], Ranga Reddy District 7 P Lingam, S/o.P.Mallesh, Aged Ma.jor, Occ: Owner, R/o H No.9-15'1 , Medchel Post, Ranga Reddy Diskict. R- 4 to R -7 dismissed for default vide court order dated 05-07-2016. R -2 & R -3 are declared as majors by discharging the guardianship from R -1 vide court order dated 03-01-2025 in l.A.No.4 & 5 ol 2022. ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.'1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.26 ol 2OO4 dated.26-06-2006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor AccUent Claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Secunderabad. // 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 Sri K S N Murthy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Subbagari Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.i to 4 and none appeared for the respondent No.S to 7. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: I '1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

2. fhat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \\' 1\-'- / secrroru oFFtcER --1 To, 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Secunderabad

2. fwo CD Copies ADK FT HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 DECREE MACMA.No.2264 of 2006 1fi,t-,i =$ st.s' ? i-- ?). o LI \ \ DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.2264 OF 2006 WITHOUT COSTS co'gaa y^{"