The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA I)EVI EADA M.A.C.M.A. NO.7 73 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrir:,ed by the Order and Decree dated 26.10.2021 in tvl.V.O.p.No.2B5t of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims I r bunal_cum_XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabr d (for short ,,the Tribunal") .

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties henl r are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the tril 0507.2016 the deceased was going along with his unal is that on friends towards Shamirpet from Jagadgirigutta via Medchal Chec< post in a Swift Desire Car bearing No.TS-07_UB_6935. At about I :25 a.m., when they reached near Kistapur Electrical Sub_station, ;r 3oods Carriage (Tipper) bearing No.Ap-2g-TD-7453 being driven c I its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed going al ead of the car , suddenly applied breaks, due to which the car rar into the goods carriage vehicle and the deceased sustained fatal i and died on the spot. The claimants sought a r: Rs.lmT,ooo/-. tjuries on head rmpensation of

4. The respondent Nos..l and 3 remained ex_part ). \*1 - \ 7 ETD,] MACMA No.773-2021

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident' age' avocationandincomeofthedeceased.ltisfurthercontendedthat the driver of the Tipper did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1 Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent dnving J tii Cood" Carriage (TippeO bearing No.AP'28-TD-7453? Whelher the petitioners are entitled for compensatbn lf so to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PW't and 2 and Exs.AltoATweremarked.onbehalfoftherespondents,nooral evidence was adduced, but Ex.81 was marked'

8. Based dn'the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- Aggrieved by the said award' the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. t \

9. Heard the submissions of Lri .Jagathpal Rert ly Kasi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Srinivrr: aw Rao Vufla, TID,] MACMA No.773 2021 learned counsel for respondent No.2. '10. Learned counsel for the appellant has sutr nitted that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in p. rer perspective and that the tribunal assessed the income of the c eceased to be very low as Rs.6,000/- per month and has arriverr at a meager amount of compensation. He further argued that the : -.ceased was a driver and the driving ricense is arso fired to prove the avocation, but still the tribunal has not considered the same. He fu ther prayed to enhance the rate of interest granted by the tribunal llAW to that of 7 .5%o per annum.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the cther hand has submitted that except firing Ex.A7ldriving license, no rther evidence is lead by the petitioners to prove that the deceased v as working as a driver. He further argued that the tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6,0001 a r j that it does not need any further enhancement. He has further c rntended that the deceased was a bachelor and thus 50% dedu<i on has to be made, while computing the compensation. I I i I !- \l ETD,] MACMA No.773 2021

12. ln view of the above contentions, the points that arise for 4 consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2 Whether the claimants are enti ed to enhancement of compensation? Mether the Order and Decree of the Tribunat need any intefference ? To what relief ?

13. Point No.1: a) The contention of the claimants is that the deceased used to work as a driver and was earning a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.200i- as Batta per day. b) PW1/T. Puthra Laxmi is the mother of the deceased and stated that he studied up to lntermediate l.tyear and that he used to work as a driver and used to earn Rs.'18,000/- per month. They filed Ex.A7ldriving license of the deceased. A perusal of the same reveals that the deceased-Veerababu was holding a driving license, it was issued on 02.06.2016.11 is a fact asserted by pW1 that the deceased was driving the Car bearing No. TS-07-UB-6935 at the time of accident. The crime record also shows that the deceased was driving the car at the time of accident. The deceased was aged 22 years as per the Post Mortem Examination Report. His driving /icense is filed under Ex.A7, it shows the date of issuance, but does snow the details of validity. tTo,l MACMA No.773 2021 c) tn Ramachandrapp" vl. Manager, t?oyal sunaj"* Alliance lnsurance Company Limitedl , the A1t lx Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with rr: ;ard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safery taken as the i rcome, in the said case, the accident occurred in the year 2004. Btt, in the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2016. Ihe deceased is shown to be a driver. Based on the evidence on record, on a reasonable hypothesis. the income of the petitiorr,,r is assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month d) As per the dicta laid down in National lnstrance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, 4Oo/o of th€, ncome needs to be added towards future prospects. As the decei sed is aged ,22, years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 3100+3200 would give Rs.11,200t- per month, which comes to Rr;11,ZOOi- x 12 = Rs.1 ,34,4001 per annum. e) Since the deceased was a bachelor at the ti r e of the alleged accident, 50% deduction need to be made to thr income of the deceased towards personal expenses and this w,) ,ld come up to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.'1,34,400 x SOok). '(2ott) 12 scc 216 ArR 2017 SCC 5157 6 ETD,] i/acMA No.773 2021 tt. f) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation3, the deceased being aged '22'years, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.12,09,6001 (Rs.67,200 x 18). S) ln the light of Pranay Sefhls case, Rs.150001 towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,0001 towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10o/o every three years. h) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and othersa, the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the^claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each, hence, L" the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,8001 instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,1501 towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. I ! ' 2009 (6) scc l2t o (2018) t8 scc l30 i) ln all, the petitioners are entitled to the followir( compensation 7 ETD,J MACMA No 773_2021 amou nts;- 1 2 3 4 Compensation under the head of loss de enden Compensation towards loss of consortium the etitioner Compensation towards loss of estate j i( Compensation towards funeral expenses Total Rs.12,09,600/- Rs.95,8001 Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.13,42,700/- j) Thus, the compensation to which the petitione-r are entifled is calculated as Rs.'13,42,7004 while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,37,200/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitiort rrs are entifled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- a) ln view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it i: held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modifierj with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has )nhanced the compensation to Rs.13,42,700/- from that of Rs.g,tl 2,200/_ that is awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 6% on the quantum of compensation \ *'5 t ETD,J MACMA No.773_2021 ln T. Viiaya lakshmi Vs. U. Dayamanais, a Bench of this High c) court has increased the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal to - 8 that of 6% Io 7 .5o/o d) ln Pathutothu Balu Vs. Devender Singh Yadav6' a Bench of this High Court has increased the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal to that of 6oh lo7.5ok- e) ln Jadav Saroia Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Anothe/; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7 '5o/o per annum on the amount of compensation' ln Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath f) suresh and otherss and National lnsurance company Limited versus. M. venkateswarulu and otherse; also interest @ 7.5o/o per annum was granted on the amount of compensation S) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions' this Court has been consistently granting interest @7 '5o/" on the compensation that is awarded in such cases h) Hence, the same is awarded in this case also Thus' the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is increased to that of 7'5%' I t t Mectlrr.No.2z9+ of 20 t6 u MAcMe.No.3228 of 20t 8 ? 2022 scc online'fs 606 3 2023 SCC Online TS l09i e 2023 SCC Online TS I I70 ETD,I MACMA No 773 2021 Point No.2 is answered accordingly 9

15. Point No.3:- ln the result, t\4 A.C.M.A filed by the cla t rants is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree daled 26.10.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2857 of 2016 passed by the Chairmar Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI Additional Cl- ef Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by enhancing the corr lensation from Rs.9,37,2001 to Rs.'12,09,600i-. The rate of interr st is increased from 6% lo 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of c aim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of : -'lay is forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the comp,r nsation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months, lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting :l e amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellarl ; are entitled to withdraw the said amount as per their respective r; rares as allotted by the Tribunal, without furnishing any seburity. No c lsts Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in t ris appeal, shall stand closed SD/.A.H.S. 3OWRI SHANKAR ASSII; TANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// \ IECTION OFFICER To, \(\ '1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal<:t Chief Judoe. Citv Civil Court, Hvderabad.(With records i' 2. ONC CC t6 SRI,-JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Ad'i 5. One CC to SRl. NIDUMOLU NAGALAXMI Advocate [OFt a. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Advocate [OPIJ 5. Two CD CoPies m-XXVI Additional iiJL rorr.r fr-.-,--'T'l *P w ! t! ri: HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.773 of 2021 cL E i.,t,'. .t ]i I g ii'r )7, ') * )afli' I(; I , -lr (\ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ilrr, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NA/ENry FIVE PRESENT 134441 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 773 OF 2021 Between:

1. Smt. T. Puthra Laxmi, \A/io T.Safti Babu, Aged 47 years, occ. Household

2. T.Satti Babu, S/o Late Narayana Raju, Aged 56 years, occ. Nil, All are resident of H.No.5-224, Markendeya Nagar, Gjularamaram, Quthbullapur, IDA Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District, Presently residents of H No 3-5-1094121 12' Naravanaguda' HvderaolXrr=r,-o*Ts/pETlroNERS AND

1. Rank Silicon and lndustries Private Limited, Rep. by N.V.Rajesh, Resident of Sy.No.34,35,36 and 39, Ravalkoli, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. M/s Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co., Ltd.,, Rep. by its Deputy Manager (Legal), 3-6-111/8, ll Floor, Far East Plaza, Street No.18, Main Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

3. S.Madel, S/o S.Kashanna, Aged 30 years, Occ. Driver, R/o H.No.1-'19, Ausalkunta' Lingal' Mahaboobnagar ...RESpoNDENTS/RE.poNDENTS' Appeal filed under Section 173 of M V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 26. 10.2021passed in O.P.No. 2857 o't 20'16 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants and MS. NIDUMOLU NAGALAXMI, advocate appeared for the Respondent No. 1 and SRI SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA advocate appeared for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appo rl be and is hereby partly allowed, modifying the order and Decree dt..'.6102021 in MVOP No 2857 ol 2016 Passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidert Claims Trrbunal-cum- XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City CivilCourt,Hyderabai

2. fhat the compensation amount be and is her:by enhanced from .est is increased from Rs.9,37,200/- to Rs.12,09,600/- and that the rate of int€ 6o/o to 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition tll realization and that the interest for the period of delay is forfeited.

3. That the respondents be and are hereby dire <ted to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a reriod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgmer. after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

4. That on such deposit by respondents, the appellants it e entifled to withdraw the said amount as per their respective shares as a lrtted by the Tribunal, without furnishing any security.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appea SD/-A.H.I i. GOWRI SHANKAR ASIJ STANT REGISTRAR lfirue Copyll To L The Chairman, n/'lotor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribuni - :um-XXVI Additional 2. Two CD Copies. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.With records f any) GEiPSL } CTION OFFICER { I HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.773 ol 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS r6lr lxt