The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. T. Geeta Rani W/o. T.K.D prasad Age:44 years, Occ House Wife, Rto.22l7, Badan gpet, Saroorna gar, nan gi iied-dt oistii"ci' "' """ ' I53;!ix?13:,.3j?;?u3?,*5,1? *g?,rr1"#3?" 'ffi{4,Ev?'Vyfi l[?\;r['?XlfgiP?1#fl:b?nP:i'ln:U,,"^[X"ci;%,il occ Emp,ovee Rto 22/7, 74511 Prasanna Anthonv Reddv, S/o.Not Known, Aged Major R/o.plot No.20, Mampalty_House, 2nd Floirr.U;i N:-a.g;r_-New'b,o"ienpatty, Secunderabad _ 500 01 1. [Previous owner of the Crlru""-ni it ni"i+irf 4 ...RESPONDENTS/PETRS. 1 to 2 & Rl to 2 i ':- - MACMA NO: 1244 0F 2014 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M V Act against the Order and Decree daledlT-11-2012ino'P.No.l555of20l0onthefileoftheCourtofthe[\Iotor VehicleAccidentsClaimsTribunal-Cum-XAdditionalChiefJudge,FastTrack Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad' Between: '1 . T. Geeta Rani Wo T.D.K Prasad, Aged 47 years, Occ Household' 2. T.D.K.Prasad, S/o Subba Rao, Aged 52yea$' Occ Employee' Both R/o 2217 , Badangpet, Saroornagar, R R Dist ...CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS AND

K. Srinivas S/o Venkataraiaiah, Occ Business, R/o H No 3-10/2' Nlasaipet virrliilj, 'i"rJrrti [/;n,[i, i'll"dit Dittrict lo*ner of Alto car No AP 1oAH 7451) Prasanna Anthony Reddy, S/o Not known, R/o Plot No 20' [t/lampallyHouse' - i;;F6;;, uilNlg"i ("* Bowenpaltv, becunderabad (Previous owner of Alto Car No AP 1OAH 7451) Roval Sundaram Alliance lnsurance company Limited, Represented by its d'rG";;i M;ilgei, Divisional office 4th-and 5th Floor' Jewel Pawaqurn iow"is, Rajbhaian Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad' Policy No.MP 30036393 Valid From 30.06 2007 to 29 06 2008 2 J ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the APPellant in MACMA No. 808 of 2013 and for the Respondent No. 3 in MACMA No. 1244 of2014 : Sri N. Mohan Krishna Counsel for the ResPondents 1 and 2 in MACMA No. 808 of 2013 and for the Appellants in MACMA No. 1244 ot 2014 : Sri V. Atchuta Ram The Court delivered the following COMMON JUDGMENT: a:: 1 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.8 08 0F 2013 AND M.A.C.M.A.No .1244 0F 20t4 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 . These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.808 of 2O13, filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of the Tribunal ancl M.A.C.M.A.No.1244 of 2074 filecl by claim petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation, boLh are directed against the very same order dated 17. ll.2Ol2 passecl in O.p.No. 1555 of 2O10, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Hyderabad (for short, ,the Tribunal). Court, Ciry Civil Court, x

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The bricf facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased filed a petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of A.p.M.V.Ruies 19g9 read with Section 163-.\ 1aO(c) of M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.8,0O,OO0/- on account of the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2\.O4.2OOB. It is 2 MGP,I MACMA No sO8 of201l and MACMA.No'1244 of 2014 stated by the petitioners that on 2l 04 '2OOa' wheu the deceased along with others \^rent to Ramalingeshrvara Srvamy Temple at Mettuguda Village in Warangal District in Alto Car bearing No AP- 1O-AH-7451 and when returning home' at that time' when they reached near Pragathi High School at the outskirts of Mustyal village at about lO OO P'M ' the driver of Alto Car bearing No AP- 1O-AH-7451 drove the car in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashcd to a culvei-t' As a result' thc car turned turtle on the road and the deceased sustained grievous iniuries and died on the sPort.

4. Based on a complaint' Police of Cherial Police Station registered a case in Crime No'39 of 2008 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the subject car'

5. It is stated by the petilioners that prior I'o accident' thc deceasedwashaleandhealthyandcompleted..ComputerGraphics and Animation (CGA) course from the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad and also secured a job as Graphic Designer in Organge IT solutions at Ameerpet' Hyderabad and is having bright future in computer field' Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners were unable to recover from the mental shock and agony and lost their family' support' earning prospects and is getting difficult to eke out thelr livelihood' Hence' 3 MGP,] MACMA No 808 of2013 and MACMANo-1244of201a filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.g,OO,000/_ against the respondents, who are the owners and Insurer of the vehicle i.e. Alto car bearing no.Ap_ 1O_AH_74S 1.

6. Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex_ parte. Respondent No.3 filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that respondent No_ 1 had not furnished the particulars of insurance policy and the petitioners have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:_ o (it Whether the pteadecl accident cl<tted 21 .O4.200g utcts occurced due to the rash and negtigent clriuitg of the diuer of cime uehicle i.e., Alto car beartng No.Ap_lOAH_7451 qnd. u.thether the deceased T.Anil Kumar died due to the srLid accident? Wh.ether tlte petitioners are enttded. for compensation and. tJ so, to tLhat quantum and whether crime uehicle u)as ou)ned. by fi.rst respondent and in-sured. uith 2nd respondent and tl)hat is the tiabitity of the respond.ents? Ail To ruhat relieP 8 Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, pWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A 1 to AZ were marked. On behalf of 4 MGP,-I MACMA.No.808 of 2013 and MACMA.No.1244 of 2014 5 t:j { respondent No.3/lnsurance Company' no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex B 1-Copy of insurance policy was marked rvith consent After considering the evidence and documents available on g. record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs 3,80,000/- along with interest @ 7 .Sok per annum payable by Respondent Nos l & 3 iointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and claim petitioners respectively'

10. Heard Sri V.Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the claim petitioners in M.A.C.M.A'No' 1244 of 2OI4 and Sri N Mohan Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company in M.A.C.M A.No 808 of 2013 Perused the record including the grounds of APPeals'

11. The contentions of the learned Standing counsel in M.A.C.M.A.No.8O8 of 2013 are that, the learned Tribunal faiied to see that t.lle accident took place due to self negligence of the driver of Alto Car and hence requested to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

72. On the other hand, the contentions of the learned Counsel for respondents/ claim petitioners in M.A.C.M.A 1244 of 2Ol4 are \ ,l 5 rv,tGp,l MACMA.No.E06 of 2013 and NIACMA.No_1244 of 2014 that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased @ Rs.3,00O/- as against their claim of Rs.10,OOO /_ ; falled to consider awarding future prospects to the established income of the deceased and arso ought to have awarded more interest on the compensation amount and hence, rcquested to ailow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

13. Now the point that emerge for determination is, Whether requires interference of this Coirt? .the -order passed by the leomed_ Tibunal POINT:- 14 This Court has perused the record including the grounds of the grounds raised by Appeal. Since one of appellant/Insurance company in M.A.c.M.A.No.8og of 2o 13 is that the deceased himself had contributed for occurrence of the alleged accident, this Court is inclined to delve into the said aspect for arriving at a correct conclusion.

15. PW2, an eye witness to the incident, deposed in his evidence that on 21 .O4 .2OO8, when he was proceeding in Auto after completion of his work at Jangam and returning to his village Cherial and when reached near pragathi High School situated at the outskirts of Mustyal Village, at about IO.OO p.M., the driver of Alto Car bearing No.Ap- 1O,AH-7451 drove the car in a rash and { I 6 MGP,J MAcMA.No.8o8 of 2013 and MACMA.No.1244 of 2014 ,] negligent manner at high speed and dashed to culvert As a result' the car turned turtle on the road and all sustained grievous injuries and died. Police examined him and recorded his statement' Hestatedthattheaccidentoccurredonlyduel:otherashand negligent driving of the driver of Alto car bearing No'AP- 1O-AH- T4Sl.Further,aperusalofExAI-FIRandtrxA3-Finalreport clearly discloses that the occurrence ol accident r"'as due to losing control by the driver of the alleged Alto car u"hich resulted into the accident and the death of the deceased was due to "Cardio respiratory failure due to fracture of ribs and injuries to Heart "

16.TheotherContentionraisedbythelearncdStandingCounsel for appellant/ Insurance Company in M'A'C M'A No 8O8 of 2O13 is r,r,ith regard to quantum of compensation and application of multiplier

17. Though learned counsel for claim petitioners contendcd that the deceasecl had completed the courses of computer graphics and animation and also got offer in uOrange IT Solutions" as a Graphic Designer for monthly income of Rs' 1O,0O0/- per monlh which was marked as trx.A5, but the learned Tribunal without considering the same, took the notional income of the deceased (@ Rs'3,00O l- per month. A perusal of Ex.A5-offer letter issued by Orange IT solutions shows that it was sent to the deceased on 22 O4'2OO8 I i i I I I I I 7 I\,4GPJ MACMA.No.808 of 2013 and MACMA No 1244 ot2014 i.e., after the date of accident and death of the deceased. Further, the said letter is only an offer letter and not appointment letter and unless and until the same has been accepted, it does not come into force. Further, pW 1 in her cross_examination had categorically admitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was an un_ employee and not an earning member. Hence, considering the fact that the deceased was an un_employee at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month which this Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

18. Further, a perusal of the impugned judgment clearly shows that the learned Tribunal failed to consider awarding future prospects to the established income of the deceased. Hence, this Court, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd..Vs.pranay Sethi i , hereby add, 40% towards future prospects by considering the age of the deceased as 19 years and he being self-employed. Upon addition of the same, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,2OO/,. Since the deceased being Bachelor, if 50% is deducted towards his personal and living expenses, then his net monthly income would be Rs.2,100/- and the annual income comes to Rs.25,2OO/_. After I {2017 {6) r7o sc) 8 MGP,I MACMA No.808 0f2013 and MACMA.No.1244 of 2014 applying multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency on account of the cieath of the deceased would come to Rs 4,53,600/-'

19. The learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs 20'000/- (Rs. 1O,0O0 / -each) towards loss of love and affection; Rs 5'000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.21,O00/- towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs. iO,00O/- towards transport and medical expenditure. This Court, considering the date and year of accrdent, linds the said amounts to be on reasonable sidc and is not inclined to interfere with the same Thus, in all, the claimants/ appellants in M.A.C.M.A.1244 of 2Ol4 are entitled for a lotal compensation as calculated under: S.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded Tribunal Rs.3,000/- Amount awarded this Court. Rs.a,200/ - Rs.18,OOo/- Rs.25,2oOi - Rs.3,24,O00/- Rs.4,53,600/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.5,0O0/- and Rs. 10,0O0/ - Rs.21,0OO/ - Monthly income Addition towards of 4Oo future ros e cts Annual income calculated after deducting 5Oo/" since the deceased being bachelor Applying Multiplier '18', Loss of love and affection Funeral expenses Transport medical expenditure Non-pecuniary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8ro t I t t ! I 9 MGP,] MAC[1A_No.80E of 201] and MACMA.No_1244 of 2014 9 dam CS TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.3,80,00O/- Rs.5,09,600/-

20. As far as liability is concerned, the learned Tribunal at para (x) of the impugned judgment observed that respondent No.2 in O. P. is no longer concerned with the offending car due to transfer of vehicle to respondent No. 1, however, there is no evidence to the extent that the vehicle was transferred lcgalty from respondent No.2 to respondent No. 1. In such circumstances the learned Tribunal ought not to have exonerated respondent No.2 from its liability, more particularly, wherr Ex.B 1_lnsurance policy discloses the name of respondent No.2 as owner of alleged Alto car bearing No.AP- 1O-AH-7451. Hence, this Court is inclined to fasten liability upon respondent No.2 also along with respondent No.l & 3 in paying compensation.

27. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.g0g of 2O13 is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.1244 of 2Ol4 is partly_allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,80,O0O/- to Rs.5,09,6O0/- which shall carry inrerest @ Z.S% per annum from the date. of petition till the date of reaiization payable by respondent Nos. I to 3 jointly and severally. The respondents 1to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a f, t I i i. I 10 MGP'] MACMA.No.8O8 oi 2013 and N,4aaMA.No.1244 of 2014 copy of this judgment Upon such deposit, since learned counsel for claimants filed a Memo dated 1,7 .O3.2025 stating that claimant No.2 died on 23.08 2O2O and there are no other legal heirs to bring on record except claimant No' 1' who is aiready on record, therefore, claimant No'1/appellant No 1 in MACMA 1244 of 2014 is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount without furnishing anY securitY' There shall be no order as to costs Mrscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTI {xl FFICER

1. The Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri N. Mohan Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V. Atchuta Ram, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VT{/PSL l,', i i i I I II '.. .ll, x:si. f.i:, {r -1 .:..',. ''tl- '; r t Ifl 14 ( ESi]1 P s HIGH COURT DATED: 2010312025 CONNNNON JUDGTI/ENT+ DECREE MACMA.No.808 of 2013 AND MACMA.N o.1244 of 2014 c / h /t ft, { DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.808 ot 2013 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.1244 of 2014 WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MAGMA NO: 808 O F 2013 AND 1244 0F 2014 MACMA NO:8 08 0F 2013 Between: AND 1 Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Co Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manaoer o/o Divisionar office 4th siri rr6-oi-Lu-*zr F5*z'qrin Towers, Raibhav:an 5lo"B3:ro?"flS,rndg6:rJi[i.,,0,0 ipliiJri"ilf nrp'lboooari5'-V;lid",i!,i,?i "no ...APPELLANT/R.3 -' """

2. T.K.D.Prasad, S/o.Subba Rao, Ag T. Geeta Rani W/o. T.K D prasad, Ag9: la years, Occ House Wife, Rlo.22l7, Badangpet, saroornagar, nanga ied"dt Distiiii' e 50 years, Occ Em ployee Rlo.22t7, Badangpet, Saroornaga Ranga Reddy Distri r KSrinivas_, S/o.Venkata Raiaiah Ag [v], veldurthv trul, ueoati %1"i'o"t Prasanna Anthonv Redclv, S/o Not Known, Aged Major R/o.plot No.20 Mampaily House. 2nd rro6i Umi'rriag;;, tE*'it"";";pa1y. Secunderabad _ 500 01 t. [previous owner otthe C"ilrLlAp it n"n i?irl ^|{31o1pcc srnct. [(Jwner of Alto Car No Ap .10 Business-R/o H. No. 3-1 0/2, AH Di J 4 ...RESPONDENTS/PETRS. 1 to 2 & R1 to 2 MACMA NO: 1244 OF 2014 Between:

1. T. Geeta Rani Wo T.D.K.prasad, Aged 47 years, Occ Household, 2. T.D.K.Prasad, S/o Subba Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ Employee, Both R/o 2217, Badangpet, Saroornagar, R.R.Dist AND ...CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS i!:. rr.i i.7

1. K. Srinivas S/o Venkatarajaiah Occ Business' R/o H'No' 3-10/2' Mas.qpet Village, Veldurty Mr;i;i"ffi;i"r oitt'i"ttO*ner of Alto Car No AP 10AH 7451)

2. Prasanna Anthony Reddy, S/o Not known' R/o Plot No 20'-Mampally^ House' 2nd Floor, uma r.rag;:iid'iail;t prlly, SeCunderabad (Previous owner of Alto Car No. AP 1OAH 7451)

3. Royal Sundaram Alliance tnsurance Company Limited' Represented by its onice, 4th' an'd stn Floor, Jewel Pawaquin 'oi"iiio"ir Divisionat t\/anager. ioweis, naiUnavin'Road, Somajig uda, Hyderabad' Policy No MP 30036393 Valid From 30 06 2007 to 29 06 2008 ...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS AppealsfiledunderSectionlT3ofM.V.ActagainsttheorderandDecree dated 17-1 1-2012 in o.P.No. 1555 0f 2010 0n the file of the court of the lVlotor VehicleAccidentsClaimsTribunal-Cum.XAdditionalChiefJudge'FastTrack Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad' These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court and the material papers in the caseanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriN.MohanKrishna,Advocateforthe Appellant in MACMA No 808 of 2013 and for the Respondent No' 3 in MACMA No.l244ol2Ol4andofSriV.AtchutaRam,AdvocatefortheRespondentsl and2lnMACMANo'B0Sol2ol3andfortheAppellantsinIVACMANo.l244of

2014. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA No. B0B of 20'13 be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the tr4ACMA No. 1244 of 2014 be and hereby is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,80,000/-toRs.S,0g,600lwhichshallcarryinterest@7'SY"perannum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severallY,

3. That the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 2 months from the dare of receipt of a copy of this judgment; 4. That upon such deposit, since learned counsel for claimants filed a [Vlemo dated 17.03,2025 stating that claimant No.2 died on 23.08.2020 and there are no other legal heirs to bring on record except claimant No. 1, who is already on record, therefore, claimant No.i/appellant No..l, who in I\/ACIMA No 1244 0t 2014 is entired to withdraw the entire compensation amount without furnishing any security; That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 5 SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECT N OFFIGER u m -X Ad d iti o n a r c h i er J u d s e, To, //TRUE COPY//

1. The Motor Vehicle I r a st iraii 6 ffi :'.ff 'cf,:is"?,f S ?-, ils,.:tX';"

2. Two CD Copies VI'PSL / HIGH COURT DATED: 2010312025 COIUIUON DECREE MACMA.No.808 of 2013 AND MACMA.N o.1244 of 2014 ? /A I / 7 DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.808 of 2013 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.N o.1244 of 2014 WITHOUT COSTS