The High Court · 2025

Petiticn under seetion 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidervit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the lnterirn granted'in lA No. 312o24 in MACMA No 1a6i ot 2024 dated 07111t2V24. IANO:3O Petition irnder section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.af{idavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all the lurther proceedings in MV op No. 1o3 ot 2621 , Dt.29i11/2623 on the. file.. of MACT curn Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem District at Kothaguderr, pending disposal ofthe above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: UMA MAHESWARA RAO JAKKULA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HoN,BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.L461 0F 2024 IUDGMENT: Heard Sri V.Krishna Rao, Iearned counsel for appellant-insurance company and sri Uma Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for respond'ent Nos.L to 4/claim Petitioners.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Companyaggrievedbytheimpugnedorder,dated2g.lL.202Sin M.V.O.P.No.103 of 2021. passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Bhadradri Kothagudem (for short,'Tribunal') and thereby, seeking to set aside the impugTled order'

3. The appetlant herein is the respondent No.3-insurance comPany/ respondent Nos.l. to 4 herein are the claim petitioners, resPondent No'5 herein is the respondent No.L-driver of the crime vehicle and respondent No.6 herein is the respondent No.2-owner of the crime vehicle before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4.L. On 18.06.2020, white the deceased i.e., shaik Myboobe @ Maibooba was returning from Bazaar to her house on foot and when she reached Kukkala Prasad's house, Lingam Banjara village, the driver \ 2 LNA,J MACMA No.t461 of 2024 of Bole::o Truck bearing registration No.TS_2g _T_3069 (hereinafter referred to crime vehicre), wh,e reversing the vehicre, drove it in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, as a resurt, he feil down on CC road, received breeding injuries alr over the body, and was shifted to Government Hospitar, Khammam, and wh,e undergoing treatment, he succumbr:d to the injuries. The porice registered a case in Crime No.113 of 2020 u.der sections 304-4 IpC against the driver of the crime vehicre and filed <:harge sheet. 4'2' The claim petitioners filed craim petiticn undcr section 166 <:f M.r/.Act, 1988 before the Tribunar craiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,0Cr0/- along with interest.

4.3. The r:laimants claimed that the deceased was aged alrout 60 years as on the d,te of accident, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.20,000/_ per month by doing vegetable business and contributing the same to her family members. Due to sudden death of deceased, the craimants lost their so:rrce of maintenance. 5' The r.spondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner of the crime vehicle remeined ex parte. 6' The respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter denying the allegations i.e., the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning 3 LNr'"J MACMA No.7461 o12024 capacity, and further averred that the deceased was crossing the road without observing the vehicle and thereby contributing to the accident and finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the deceased-Shaik Myboobe @ Maibooba died in the motor vehicle accident, that took place on 18.06.2020 ? If so, whether accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero Max Truck bearing No-T$2S-T- 3069 ? ii) \Alhether the petitioners are entitled for any comPensation ? if so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected ? iii) To what relief?

8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.L and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to 46 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company, no witness was examined, but insurance policy was marked as Ex.Bl. g. The Tribunal, on due consideration of evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.9,85,000/- along with interest @ 7.5o/o Per aru1um from the date of petition tilt the date of rcalization. The respondent Nos.L to 3 were held to be jointly and severalty liable to pay the said compensation. \ 4 LNA,T MACMA No.1467 of 2024

10. During the hearing of the appeal, learned counser for appertant_ insurancercompany contended that the Tribunat failed to appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously awarded the huge compensation. He further contended the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the dr:ceased at Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month, instead of Rs.15,000 i - per annum, basing on the decision of Hon,ble Apex Court in Ramach,tndrappa's case. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in adcing 25o/o of the income of the deceased as future prospects since as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in pranay seti,s case, no future prospects can be added for the age group of persons, \n,hs are aged above 60 years. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted 6% interest instead of 7.5.o/o. 11' Per contra,learned counsel for the claim petitioners would submit that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed, the Hon'ble T'ibunal had rightly awarded the compensation and no grounds arc made out by the appellant-insurance company to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Consideration:

12. Insofar as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal considering the profession of the deceased as vegetable vendor / 5 LNA'J MACMA No.1461ol 2024 and that she was also runnit g u kirana shop, had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000 / - Pe, month. It is pertinent to mention that the claimants have not placed any material on record in proof of avocation and income of the deceased and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month' [n the light of facts and circumstances of the case, cost of living and also considering the age and avocation claimed by the claimants, monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.6,500/- and therefore, the same needs to be modified to the above extent'

13. Insofar as award of future prospects, as Per the decision of National Insurance co.Ltd., vs. Pranay sethi and othefsl, no future prospects can be awarded where the deceased is aged beyond 60 years' However, the Tribunal erroneously awarded 25Yo towards future prospects of the d.eceased and the same needs to be set aside' However' the interest awarded by the Tribunal is iust and proPer and needs no interfere with regard to interest.

14. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant that the married. daughters are not the dependents of the deceased and therefore, the dependents of the deceased are only two in number i.e., daughter-in-law and the grand-daughter' who is physically ' (zorz) 16 scc 680 6 LNA,J MACMA No.1461 of2O24 handicapped' Thus, one-third of income of deceased be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hon ever, without considering the same, the Tribunar erred in deduc trng 40"/o of the incorne of the deceased. 15' [n Manjuri Bera v. oriental Insurance company Limitedz, the Hon'ble liupreme Court herd that though the married daughter is ,ot depender t on deceased, being 'regar representative, of deceased, she is entitled t() cornpensation and therefore, the craim petition f,ed by the married d'rugrrter of victim/decea.ed is mailrtainabre. 16' [n 'r'iew of trre above crecision, the contenr.ion of the rearned counsel fc'r apperant that married daughters are not entitred for compensation is untenable and sarne is rejected. 1'7' with regard to riving expenses of the deceased is concerned, as the Hon'bkr Apex court in sarra verma (smt) and others vs. Dethi Transport oorporation and another3, the Hon,bre Apex Court held that rt'here the deceasecr was married, the deduction towards personar and Iiving expenses of the deceased should be one-fourth where the number of dependent iamil,v members is 4 to 6. ' 2oot (3) Ar.D 5: (sc) ' (2009) 6 SCc 12l ? J" 7 LNA,T MACMA No.t46t of 2O24

18. In view of the above decisiory one_fourth of the income of the deceased shourd be deducted towards her personar and Iiving expenses. Therefore' the Tribunar had erred in deduc ttng 4ao/o instead of one- fourth income of the deceased tov,rards her personal and living expenses and the same is riable to be modified to that extent. 19' Perusar of the impugned award,it appears that the Tribunar has not awarded consortium to the craim petitioners. with regard to award of consortium, the Hon'bre Apex Court in pranay sethi (supra), at paragraph No.Sg.g herd that reasonabre figures on conventionar heads, namely, Ioss of estate, Ioss of consortium and funerar expenses shourd be Rs'15,000, Rs.40,000 / - and.Rs.15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 1,0%in eve,ry three years. In view of the above decision, the petitioners are entitred to Rs.ao000/_ each towards consortium. The petitioners are also entifled to receive the aforesaid amount with enhanced amount at the rate of -r,o% three years- Thus, petitioners are entitred to an amount of Rs.1,z6 ,oo0/ _ (Rs.44,000 / - x a) towards consortium. forevery I \ Conclusion:

20. under: In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated as *\ '.-'-*-._. Sl.No. IIead Income l)eduction towards personal 'total monthlY income Multiplier Loss of dependencY LNA,I MACMA No.1467 of 2024 8 Compensation awarded Rs.6,500/- Per month Rs.1,65/- (i.e., one-fourth of Rs.6,500/-) Rs.4,875/- (i.e., Rs.6,500/- (-) Rs.1,625l-) 7 (i.e., Rs.4,875 /-x7 x72) Compensation consortium Loss of estate Funeral exPenses loss of Rs. -x Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Total to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ?'1 . Tre Appeal is Partly allowed and the comPensation amount is reducecifromRs.9,75,000/-toRs'6'15'500/-withinterestattherateof 7.s.'/oper annum from the date of petition till the date of realization' Theap.rellantandtheresPondentNos.4and5hereinaredirectedto paytheSaidcomPensationamountjointlyandSeverallywithillaperiod ofeight(6)weeksfromthedateofreceiptofcopyofthisorder,duly adjustingtheamountifanyalreadyPaid'Onsuchdeposit'the claimarrts are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount' There r;haIlbe no order as to costs' if any shall stand closed' - SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER I /TRUE COPY/' to,, Bhtrdradri Kothagudem. . Th* chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-principar District Judge at 2. Onr3 Q6 to Sri V Krishna Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3 .on.aCCtoSriUmaMaheswaraRaoJakkula,Advocate[oPUC] . "i\r,10 tD (rrp]es t4 )Xv HIGH COURT DATED: 1710312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1461 ot 2O24 E I a i 0 r4AH 202E 4 \ *i,' I ici; l,r PARTLY ALLOI,VING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS 16 u 1i tJ) [ 33831 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE TiI{j:Ufi THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY s Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., B.O.Kothagudem, Rep.by lts Manager, MOTOR TPHUB, HRO, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad (Poticy no. 05250 1 3 1 20P 1 020789 I 5 valid f rom 26 I 0612021 to 25106 l2O22l ...Appellant D 1. Shaik Satha Bee, Wo,Shaik Saidulu, 42years, House hold R/o,Mulakalapally (V),Dornakal(M), Mahabubabad District

2. Shaik Safiya, D/o, Shaik Saidulu, 23 years ,Physically handicaped R/o, Mulakalapally (V), Dornakal(M), Mahabubabad Dist.

3. ShaikAbbas Bee, D/o, Rl/o,Lingam Banjara,H/o, Saheb,Wo, Ramjan, 47 years Household, ly Karepally (M), Khammam District

4. Shaik Saida Bee Kaikondagudem Lingam Banjara, , D/o, Mogal Saheb ,w/o, Yakub 45 years' Household, Rl/o, (M), Khammam Diskict R-1 to R-5 are presently residing at H/o,Mshwanadhapally(V) Karepally (M), Khammam District

5. Adinarayana,, S/o, Pichaiah, Driver of Bolero Maxi Truck No. TS 28 T 3069,R/b,4-2-97l1 B, Jagadamaba Talkies Area Yellandu Town, Bhadradri Kothgudem District.

6. M/s Sri Venkateshwara Transport, Rep. by its Prop. Bhukya Sravanthi, Owner of Bolero Maxi Truck no. TS 28 T 3069, C/o, Laxmi Gas, R/o, 2-311, Subhashnagar, Sudhimalla, Yellandu, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P. No. 103 ot 2021 dated 2911112023 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Bhadradri Kothagudem. 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 appeat and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Krishna Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Uma Maheshwar Rao, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. Thert the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed. 2. Thert the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby ' enhanced for Rs. 9,75,000/- to Rs. 6,15,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.s't/o pet annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 3. That the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein be and hen:by directed to pay the said compensation amount joinfly and severally within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount if any already paid.

4. That on such deposit, the claimants be and hereby entifled to withdraw the entire compensation amount.

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER 7 I I To,

1. The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-principal District Judge at Bhadradri Kothagudem

2. Two CD Copies W ABK/nvb / I HIGH COUR DATED: 1710312025 DECREE MACMA.No.1461 ot 2024 PARTYLY ALLOWING THE MACMA \ulo w