The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. T. Mahender SC FOR INSURAN CE COMPANY Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. A.V.K.S' Prasad M.A.C.M.A.No.598 of 201 9 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act the Award dated 31-10-2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.362 of 2012 on the file of the Court Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. Between: 1. 2. 3. 4. Mahankali Samatha, Wo. Rajaram, Age:46 years, Household M. Pavan S/o. Rajaram, Age:23 years, Student M. Pravalika D/o Rajaram, Age:21years, Student M. Kapil Kumar S/o Rajaram, Age:19 years, Student. The Appellants 1 to 4 here in are now residing at Jyothinagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. AND 1.

3. ...Ap pe I la nts/Petiti oners G Praveen Kumar, S/o Dinakar Rao, Age:43 years, Owner of Car MH-34.K- 1726, Rlo. 1-101 , Main Road, Wankidi, Maharastra State. The Reliance General lns. Co. Ltd., 6th floor, Land Mark Building, Wardha Road, Nagpur-440010. The Br. Manager, Reliance General lns. Co.Ltd., Ambedkar Road, Kyasa Towers, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ... Res pondents/Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. A.V.K.S. Prasad Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 3: Mr. T. Mahender Rao, SC FOR INSURANCE COMPANY The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT .l \' macma-4169-2014, and macma-598-2019 NBK, J t And I l9 Inthesecrossappeals,theAwarddated3l.l0.20l3passedbythe Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge' Karimnagar, in M.V.O.P. No.362 of 2012 is under challenge ' vide the impugned Award, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs' L9,32'3501-' with proportionate costs and intere stat 7.5o/o' to the claimants/dependents of the deceased Rajaram, from the date of petition tilt the date of actual deposit' and directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein (i.e., Reliance General lnsurance company) to deposit the compensation within thirty 30 days of the Award. The Tribunal also apportioned the compensation amongst the claimants/dependents of the deceased Rajaram. Aggrieved by the Award, the Reliance General Insurance company filed MACMA No'4169 of 2014; and the claimants/dependents of the deceased filed MACMANo'598 of 2019' For convenience of discussion, the parties will henceforth be referred as insurance company, and claimants' 2. Heard Mr. T. Mahender Rao, learned standing counsel for the insurance company; and Mr. A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the record

3. Learned Standing counsel for the insurance company essentially content frat the accident was due to head-on collision between the 2' 2 macma_ 159_2014, and macma_598_2019 NBK, J wheeler (AP-25D-7779), and Car (MH-34K-1,726), and therefore the Tribunal ought to have held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of 2-wheeler as well, on which the deceased was a pillion rider; and the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of Car. It is contended that the compenQation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium to claimantNo.l-wife, and Rs.20,000/- each to the claimants 2 to 4, is excessive. Further, the interest of 7.5Yo per annum is also excessive, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporationr. He also relies on the judgment of this Court in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu vs. Mohammed Afzal Miyan2, in support of his contention on contributory negligence that head- on collision takes place only when the drivers of both the vehicles are negligent. He also relies on Gita Mondal vs. Jagga Singh3. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the contrary, contends that the

4. Tribunal had appreciated the evidence and gave a finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the rider of 2-wheeler that resulted in the death of the deceased. He contends that the Tribunal erred in taking net salary of the deceased, instead of gross salary; and further no amounts were awarded toward loss of estate, funeral expenses etc., and hence the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation. He relies on the judgment in United India Insurance Co., vs. K. Anjaiaha; Anjana Narayan Kamble vs. Branch manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limiteds; Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Majda Khatoon6; Anjana I (2009) 6 scc 121 2 zoos acl gss 3 2016 ACJ tz85 4 2OO4 (4 ) ALD 444 s 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1,376 6 2ot6 AcJ 2028 rl- \ i I I i I I I 3 macma-4169-2Ol4, and macma 598-2019 N8K, J Narayan Kamble vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General lnsurance Company LimitedT.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record' it may be noted that the occurrence of accident on 30'04'2008 at 5:30 AM involving a 2-wheeler (AP-25D-777g) and a car (MFI-34K-1726) wherein a head-on collision had taken place, is not in dispute' In relation to the accident, a case was registered in Crime No.62 of 2008 of Asifabad Police Station, and after investigation, charge sheet was filed'

6. With regard to contributory negligence, the Tribunal had recorded that PW-2 (who was LW- 12 inthe charge sheet) deposed in his evidence that on 30.04.2008 at 05.:30 AM, PW-2 was in front of his hut, and he witnessed that a car came at high speed, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed the motorcycle; and that he witnessed the accident from a distance of 20 feet. The Tribunal further recorded that the Police, Asifabad, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the car showing him as responsible for the accident' and the mere fact that there were three persons on the 2-wheeler of the deceased at the time of accident would not in any way show that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. In that view of the matter' in the instant case, in the absence of substantiating material to infer that the very act of tripte riding of 2-wheeter had contributed to the accident' and in view of the specific recording by the investigating authority that the offending car was at fault in causing the accident, and also in the light of the judgment of theHon,bleSupremeCourtinAnjanaNarayanKamble(supra),this __---aq- 7 2022 Lawsuit (Sc) 1376 4 macma_4169-2OL4, and macma_598-2019 NBK,J , ) Court is not inclined to attribute contributory negligence on the 2-wheeler merely for the fact that it was a head-on collision.

7. MONTHLY SALARY: Coming to the aspect of Salary as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethis, the gross salary of the deceased has to be considered lbr assessing the loss of income. Further, certain percentage, depending on the number of dependents, requires to be deducted from such gross salary, to arrive at the loss of monthly contribution suffered by the dependents/cla irnants. tn the instant case, the deceased was a Secondary Grade Teacher. As

8. per Exhibit A-4, he was drawing a Gross Salary of Rs.21,6571- per month, and Net Salary of Rs.17,6471-. Therefore, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), Gross Salary (Rs.21,657) shall be taken for assessment of compensation. As there are four dependents (wife and 3 children), ll4th ofthe income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. So, the salary comes to Rs. 16,242.7 5 per month; and the salary per year comes to Rs.16,242.7 5 x 12: Rs.1,94,913/-. 9 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY (salarv * future nrosoects): The deceased was 53, and therefore the appropriate multiplier to assess the loss of salary, as per Sarla verma (supra) is "1l". Therefore, the total loss of salary (Rs.l ,94,913 x 11), comes to Rs.27,44,043/-.

10. Further, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), future prospects at l5o/o have to be added to the total loss of salary. Therefore, the total loss of salary 8 (zot7l 16 scc 680 I i i i I I ! l; li, ,|: 'l I. :, ,,, . 5 macma-4169-2014, and macma-598-2019 NBK, J (inctuding future prospects) would be [Rs.21 ,44,043 + (15% of Rs.2 1,44,043)1, which comes to Rs. 2 4,6 5,649'4 5/-'

11. Further, in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Rame, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that eligible dependents, i'e', spouse (for spousal consortium), child (for parental consortium), and parents (for filial consortium) are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each separately, and not as a combined amount. So, considering Nanu Ram (supra), and also Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to the following fixed amounts: \ I Loss of consortium for wife Loss of consortium for children Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses : Rs.40,000/- : Rs.120,000/- : Rs. 15,000/- : Rs.15,000/- Total : Rs.1,90,000/-

12. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singht0, the Tribunal/Court has to award just compensation based on facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the claimants are entitled to Rs.24,65,649'45 * Rs'1,90,000 i'e'' a total compensation of Rs.26r55, 650 l'.

13. Coming to the aspect of interest, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla verma (supra), the interest is reduced from 7 't% per annum to 6o/oper annum on Rs.26,55,6501- from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of compensation' : '/ e (2018) 18 scc 130 10 (2003) 2scc274 i t i i i i I i I i 'l 6 macma-4159-2014, and macma-598-2O19 . NBK, J

14. Accordingly, MACMA No.4l69 of 2ol4 is partly-allowed by reducing the interest from 7.5Yo per annum to 60/o pet annum on the compensation of Rs.26,55,6501-.And, MACMA No.598 of 2019 is allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.26,55,6501-. The claimants shall pay difference of Court fee as applicable. The directionq of the Tribunal in the Award dated 31.10.2013, with regard to proportionate costs, and ratio of apportionment shall remain intact, except that the consortium amounts shall be paid individually to each of the dependents. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ' ,or-*.osMAN ALt BA'G ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I G . SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ To, DistrictLuoge,karimnagar.(withrecordS,ifany)

1. The chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Principal 2. one CC to Mr. T. IuaNenOei Rao, SC FOiI INSURANCE COMPANY 3. bne CC to Mr. A.V.K.S' Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies loPUCl Kam/PSL :'--:jlji..{ia^+Ji.. .i:', . HIGH COURT D ATED i1410712025 \ \ f:;:l''-fi:: s () 11 I]\ J ?il?t I COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.4169 of 2014 & 598 of 2019 MACMA.No.4169 of 2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED MACMA.No.S98 of 2019 IS ALLOWED I I I I I I I i i I I ! I I I I I I It i r i I ! ! I I E i U 1O [3300] : IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SR! JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No: 4169 OF 2014 And M.A.C.M.A.No.598 of 2019 M.A.C.M.A.No.41 69 of 2014 Between:

1. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch lVlanager, 6th Floor, Land Mark Buildings, Wardha Road, Nagpur-440010.

2. Reliance General lnsurance company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ambedkar Road, Kyasa Towers, Karimnagar. ..Appellants/Respondent Nos.2 & 3 AND

1. Mahankali Samatha, wo. Mahankali Rajaram, Age:48 years, occ: Household 2. M.PaVan, S/o. Rajaram, Age:25 years, Occ: Student. 3. M.Pravallika, D/o. Rajaram, Age:23 years, Occ: Student. 4. M.Kapil Kumar, S/o. Rajaram, Age:21 years, Occ: Student All are R/o. Khagajnagar, Presently R/o. Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. . . . Respondents/Petitioners 5. Gade Praveen Kumar,, S/o. Dhinakar Rao, Age:4S years, Occ: Owner of Tata lndica car Bearing No. MH 34K 1726, Rlo. H.No.1-101, Main Road, Wankidi, Maharashtra State. ...RespondenURespondent No.1 M.A.C.M.A.No.598 of 201 9 Between:

1. Mahankali Samatha, W/o. Rajaram, Age:46 years, Household 2. M. Pavan S/o. Rajaram, Age:23 years, Student 3. M. Pravalika D/o Rajaram, Age:21 years, Student 4. M. Kapil Kumar S/o Rajaram, Age:19 years, Student. The Appellants 1 to 4 here in are now residing at Jyothinagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ...Appel la nts/Petitioners AND

1. G Praveen Kumar, s/o Dinakar Rao, Age:43 years, owner of car MH-34.K- 1726i R/o. 1-101, Main Road, Wankidi, Maharastra State.

2. The Reliance General lns. Co. Ltd., 6th floor, Land Mark Building, Wardha Road, Nagpur440010.

3. The Br. Manager, Reliance General lns. Co.Ltd., Ambedkar Road, Kyasa Towers, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ... Respondents/Respon dent Appeals filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act the Award dated 31-10-2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.362 of 2012 on the file of the Court the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. Mahender Rao, SC FOR INSURANCE COIVIPANY for the Appellants in MACMA.No.4169 of 2014 and Respondents No.2 & 3 in MACMA.No.S98 of 2019 and Mr. A.V.K.S. Prasad, Advocate for the Respondents in MACMA.No.4169 of 2014 and Appellants in MACMA.No.598 of 2019. MEMORANDUM OF PROPORTIONATE COSTS MACMA.No.S98 of 2019 S.No. Particulars 1 2 3 4. 5. 6. 7 8. Stamps for Vakalatnama Stamps used for the Memo of grounds Stamps for Judgment of the Lower Court Stamps for decree of the Lower Court Value of Copy Stamp Baper used for enclosures Advocate's fee (Fee Certificate not filed) Batta and Postage Court fee TOTAL Rs. Ps. 05.00 10 .00 02.00 02.00 26.00 00.00 75.00 10.00 130.00 This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA No.4169 of 2AM be and hereby is partly allowed by reducing the interest from 7.5o/o per annum to 6% per annum on the compensation of Rs.26,55,650/-;

2. That the MACMA No.598 of 2019 be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.26,55,650/;

3. That the claimants shall pay difference of court fee as applicable; and

4. That the directions of the Tribunal in the Award dated 31=10'.2013, with regard to proportionate costs, and ratio of apportionment shall remain intact, except that the consortium amounts shall be paid individualty to each of the dependents; and

5. Thatthe appellants be and hereby are entitled to Rs.130/- to be paid by the Respondent. //TRUE COPY/ SD'-M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Two CD Copies To, \\ ,/ r[}/ Y KamiPSL HIGH COURT DATED i1410712025 a COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.4169 of 2014 & 598 of 2019 MACMA.No.4169 of 2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED MACMA.No.S98 of 2019 IS ALLOWED ..1' 1o