The High Court · 2025

3.T.Niharika,D/o.lateSrinivasStudentR/o.H.No.2-6-45ll,KurmaWada,Ward No.15, Jangon Village and Mandal, Warangal.

4. T.Srisailam, S/o.late Venkaiah Nil R/o H.No.2-6-4511, Kurma Wada, Ward No.15, Jangon Village and Mandal, Warangal.

5. T.Siddalaxmi; Wo.Srisailam, Household [R2 and 3 being minors rep by their mother and guardian Petitioner No' 1] All are R/o.H.N o.2-645t1, Kurma Wada, Ward No 15, Jangon Village and Mandal, Warangal. .. Respondet Nos. 1 to 5 / Claim Petitioners

6. Y.Raiu, S/o.Ramaswamy, aged Major Business R/o H'No 1-1-9, Lingala Gharipur Village and Mandal, Warangal. ...RESPONDENT No. 6 / Respondent No' 1 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2007 MACMAMP. NOj2E53 OF 2004 (. Petition trn*:r S)ection '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstirnces stated in the affidavit filed ,n s:pport of the petition, the High Court may be l.rleased stay all further proceedin 3r; rrcluding execution of the award and decree passed in OP No.1107/2005 d;rterrl 21.11.2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Clain,s Tritr rnal cum Prl. District Judge, Warangal Districl Counsel for the, Aplrellant: M/s. KATTA SRAVYA ( not present) Counsel for the, Rer;pondent Nos. 'l to 5 : SRI AJAY KUMAR MAOISETry Counsel for the, Respondent No. 6: None appeared The Court deli'rered the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.67 4 of 2OO9 JUDGMENT: This appeal is hled by the Insurance Company against the Order dated 2l.Oll.2006 in O.P.No.1107 of 2OO5 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court) at Warangal.

2. The respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants hled O.P.No.1 1O7 of 2005, claiming compensation of Rs.12,O0,000/- for the death of the deceased, Tippirishetty Srinivas in the road traffic accident occurred on 06.03.2004.

3. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs. 10,52,000/- with intere st @ 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petition to till the date o[ deposit.

4. No representation for appellant. Heard learned counsel for respondents. Perused the record.

5. Appellant in the appeal grounds contended that claim application was liled under section 166 of the M.V Act and therefore the multiplier prescribed under 2"d schedule to Setion163-A of the M.V Act is not applicable. The trial Court assumed and presumed the entitlement of the petitioner on 2 assumDticlli and presumptions and not on th,3 basis ,rf the law of torts. "hr deceased was a secondary gradc tealher and was drawinq I r;rtlary of Rs.7,300/- per month but as per L.x.AS, the gross i.rcornt is shown as Rs.7,255/_. Therelbre, req.rested to set asicte t-e. order of the trial Court.

6. Thc :51e of the deceased was 3g years an(I was a secondtrr,,' 11t'zrde teacher and drawing a salary of Rr;.?,,I:t0O/_ per month. Thr:'eforc, this Court finds it reasonable. to take his income as Flr;7,30O/- per month.

7. As c,:r he guidelines of the Hon,ble Apex Cotrrt ir-r dictum of Sarla l'<trrna Vs. Delhi Transport Corpordtion , r if the deceased v.rr s married, 7 / 4h of his income has to be r leducted as ther,) arc 5 dependents. Thus, the annual in:ome of the deceasel rr jer deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.65,7()C / . l)er annum and the Hon'ble Apt:x C)our: in the dictum tf N'ottional lr.suro;nce Compang Limited. Vs. pranag SethP, h,:lcL .hat the future prospects of income of he self_ employeC clr:r:t:ased shall also be rncluded in clele.mir:ation of the comprr:;lr,ion. Thus, considering the age of tFe d,,:ceased, 50% of -he in come has to be added towards future pr..ospects and thus rir: amount would become Rs.9g,55C/_. Ihis. sum if '(uoog)6st c r t '(2017) 16 SC( r, t,r 3 mulriplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e.15, it would come to Rs.14,78,250/-. Thus, the responde nt Nos. 1 to 5 are entitled to Rs.8,3 1,600/ under the head 'Loss o[ Dependency' and Rs. 15,OO0/- towards medical bil1s.

8. Besides, the appellants are also entitled for compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the dictum of National Insurance Compang Limlted Vs. Pranag Setfti, i.e., Rs.15,O0O/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.

9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the authority of Magma. General fnsurance Compang Limited us. N<rnu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others3, and in the authority between tlnited India Insurance Compang Limited. us. Srrtinder Kaur @ Satuinder Kaur and other{, fortified that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased I (2018) r8 scc lio o (2020) 9 scc 644 4 childre:t. tr,:,:ordingly, it is just and reascnable r o award Rs.80,C0l/- as filial consortium and Rs.4rl,0C07 _ [owards spousa ,)crsortium and Rs.g0,0O0/_ to$,ar,f s parental consortiunL 1o the respondenl Nos. l to 5.

10. TTe r:f tre, the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimrrnls are entitled lt,r :Jte compensation in the following terms 1 2 Loss of dependency ,lonventional Heads Filial Consortium TOTAL Rs.14,78,250/- Rs.30,Ot )0/- Rs.2, 10. Cr00/ - Rs. 17,O8,:Z5O/- 1 1. In tt-Lr: result, the appeal is dismjsse<i e nd the compensa[i:rr amount is cnhanced from Rs.10, >2,C00/_ to Rs. 17,Oti,ll5irl / - (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs trigh1 Th,rusr,.ncl Two Hundrec rrnc Fifty only) with interest at the r,1te i 7.Sok per annum lrcnr _]re date of filing the petition till date ol.realization. Appella;-rt sh z l deposit the entire amount with:n a period of one rn I r.11r from the date of receipt of ;t copt, of this order. CrrL sruch Deposit, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permittcd ,t w-ithdraw Rs. 1.5 lakh each arrd resp:ndent Nos.4 ancl I> are permitted to withdraw Rs.1.5 lakh each ald respo ncl,r nt No. 1 is permitted to withdraw. the t alance amount along with interest There sha_ll be no order as to 5 COSTS closed Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V,S.PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER at Hyderabad ( with records )

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal ( District Court ) 2. One CC to SRl. KATTA SRAVYA Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to SRl. AJAY KUMAR MAD|SETTY Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies KUL/PSL Y\- HIGH COUR]' DATED:30/04/202I, +DECREE JUDGMENT MACMA. No.67' 4 ol',t_009 rE si rAra 1t O o ,5 l\l\ 'l!| nr^ l0 Z 6) -E- * DIMISSING TI{T] },f- \ ( ]"\4A WITHOUT COS:-S 6 "uPqdY^- itu\as IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A. NO: 674 OF 2009 Between: National lnsurance Co Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager Warangal. AND ...APPELLANT/ Respondent No. 2

1. T.Jyothi W/o.late Srinivas Teacher R/o.H.No.2-645/1, Kurma Wada, Ward No.1 5, Jangon Village and Mandal, Warangal.

2. T.Naga Santhoshini, D/o.late Srinivas Student R/o.H. No.2-6-45l1 , Kurma Wada, Ward No.15, Jangon Village and Mandal, Warangal.

3. T.Niharika, D/o.late Srinivas Student R/o.H.No.2-6-45l'1, Kurma Wada, Ward No.15, Jangon Village and Mandal, Warangal.

4. T.Srisailam, S/o.late Venkaiah Nil Rio.H.No.2-6-45l1 , Kurma Wada, Ward No.15, Jangon Village and Mandal, Warangal.

5. T.Siddalaxmi, Wo.Srisailam, Household [R2 and 3 being minors rep by their mother and guardian Petitioner No. '1] All are R:/o.H.No.2-64511, Kurma Wada, Ward No.15, Jangon Village and Mandal, War.angal. .. Respondet Nos. 1 to 5 / Claim Petitioners

6. Y.Raju, S/o.Ramaswamy, aged Major Business R/o.H.No.1-1-9, Lingala Ghanpur Village and Mandal, Warangal. ...RESPONDENT No. 6 / Respondent No. 1 Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 aggrieved by the Award and Decree daled 21-11-2006 made in O.P.No. 1107 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Prl. District Court ) at Warangal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the material papers 1n the case, and upon hearing the arguments of t\,/s. Katta Sravya, I Advocate for ther Appellant being not presenl and firi Ajay Kumar tvl adisetty, l\cvor;ate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and nore appeared for Respondent lrJo 5 This C,:o.r- doth order and decree as follows: '1 That tl're appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2 Thalthr: -t:ompe_nsation amount be and hereby is enhanced from Rs. 10,52.000i- to Rs. 17,08,250 t - ( Rupees deventeen Lakhs Eioht rhousanc rwo HundreJ'ino riry .'"rii,iiti-ii,t;;;,;i' "iit;-.r:t"r;i 7.5...o/o.i)er annum for the date of fitihg ih. petition tiff aatJ oi realizaric,n. 3. That th* appellant shall de-posit the entire amount u,ithin a period of 4. Th.at .or.t s uch Qepgslt, respondent Nos. 2 ancl 3 iitre permitted to withdrar,l Rs. 1.5 lakh each and respondeni Nor:,. 4'"na-S-"ii perrnittercl to withdraw. R9. 1.S. lakh edch ina- responaent No. 1 is perrnitte,cl to withdraw the balance amouniaton! with interest. one moirth from the date olreceipt of a copy of this c rder.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal 171By(.- <oq1u :SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPLITY REGISTRAR t6rloN oFFscgta Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal ( i)istrict Court ) at To

1. The Cherirrrarr Hyderabari 2. Two C C:. ()c,l)res Kul/PSLw HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/i1025 +DECREE JUDGMENT MACMA.No.6j,4 crl, 2009 DIMISSING TI]T ]"t-\C]\4A WITHOUT COS'-S, l-t .oP@ Y( AM