The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: B. NARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT l:r- N rcF_-.- .a;i "/ -) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.6 98 0F 2009 JUDGMENT: Dissatisfied u.ith the quantum of compensation ar.l.arded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims .Tribunal- cum _II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in O.p.No.g69 of 2OO4 dated 21.Oa.2006, the petitioners/claimanLs filed the present Appeal seeking enhancemcnt of compensa tion.

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

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioners have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,5O,0O0/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of deceased by name "Chinthala Srinu,, (hereinafter will be referred as'deceasedJ. petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, Petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased and Petitioners No.3 and 4 are parents of deceased. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 23.O8.2004, the deceased along with his relative by name one Kamalakar went to Mamunuru village on $s motorcycle bearing registration No. Ap.24.G.2235 for ) i I 2 consuming Ayrrrvedic medicine and after that they returning back to their village on the said motorcycle and when they reached Illanda village, one auto trailer bearing registration No' AP-36-V-8683 (for brevity hereinafter called as 'crime vehicle') came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4. Based on the complaint, a case in First Information Report No.123/2OO4 of Vardhannapet Police Station was registered for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code against driver of the crime vehicie, after investigation hled charge sheet. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and was working as mason and used to earn Rs.4,50o/-per month. It was stated that the petitioners were solely depending on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accident the family suffered a lot and lost young earning member, his love and affection, leaving them in misery. Therefore, the petitioners as dependents of the deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,OOO/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousald Only) against both respondents jointly and severalty. ) '.;p -l 3

5. The respondent No.l, did not choose to file counter. The respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, death, age, avocation and income of the deceased. On the above grounds, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company prayed to dismiss the claim application.

6. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed thc lollowing lhree issues. i) Whether the deceased Chinthala@ Chinthchentuu Sreenu died in the motor uehicle accident. if so. tuhether the accident occurred due to rash and. negligent cliuing bg tLre driuer of Auto Trailer bearing No.Ap.36.V.8683? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation, If so, to tuhat amount? iii) To uthat relieJ? to anA

7. During the course of trial, pWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of respondents none were examined, however, Ex. B I copy of Insurance policy was marked. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.2,23,500/- (Rupees two Lakhs twenty three thousand five i hundred only) with interest at 9o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit jointly and severally by respondents No.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the quantum of !.. 4 compensation, the appellants/claimants have preferred present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation'

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for appeilants/ petitioners is that though appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs. A-1 to A'8, the learned Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount' It was further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased on highcr side and ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation On the above grounds, the claimants prayed to allow the Appeal and enhance the comPensation ' g. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and reasonable compensation and interference of this Court rs unwarranted

10. Now the points for corrsideration: Whether tte impugned Order and Decree passed bg tle learned Tibunal calls for interference bg this court? If so uthetlrcr the appellants/ petitioners ore entitled for ang enhanrement of the comPen-sation? I I I i I 5 1 1 . Heard both sides and perused the entire record including the grounds of Appeal.

72. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No. I has not preferred any Appeal chailenging the impugned.order. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased. There is also no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of pW1 wife of the deceased couplecl with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 (FIR), A4 (Charge Sheet), A2 (lnquest Report) has arrived to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.

13. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the deceased was earning Rs.4,5O0/- per month as Mason, the learned Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased as Rs. 1,5OO/- per month and awarded very meager amount towards compensation.

14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have not piaced on record any evidence to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.4,5O0/ per month as Mason. As can be seen from trxs.A3 Inquest Panchanama, the occupation of the deceased ,\ 6 Nfl(,J was mentioned as a Mason, however, no evidence either oral or documentary was placed by the petitioners to establish that he was working as Mason and used to earn Rs'4,50O/ per month' In the absence of any evidence, the learned Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/ It is relevanl to consider the date of accident, relevant wages during the said time period and the rate of inflation while assessing the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, this Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 3,0O0/ per month, which is just and reasonable.

15. Now coming to quantum of compensation, according to the appellants/ petitioners, the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident as evident from trxs'A1 FIR, A2 Inquest report, A4 Charge Sheet. Thus, the learned Tribunal as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has taken the appropriate multiplier as "18" considering the age of the deceased. The learned Tribunal at that relevant time of accident has considered the second schedule of the Act; however, considering the year of accident and the principle laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationl, for computing the compensation; the correct multiplier applicable r (2009) 6 SCC 121 r { @.i1i6 ,r I to the age of the deceased as per the above decision of Honorable Apex Court and the age ofthe deceased being,27,the rnultiplier would be' 17,,.

16. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future prospects while calculating the compensation. Since the deceased was aged 27 year at the time of accident (i.e. below 40 years) and self employed, he is entitled for future prospects @) 40% as per the decision laid down rn National Insurance Cornpang Limited a, prq.nag Sethi and otheriz _ Thus, the monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to Rs.4,200/- per month (Rs.3,000/_ + Rs.1,200/ ). Since, there are 4 dependents 1/4th of his monthly income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and thereby the monthly income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.3,150/- (Rs.a,2OO/_ _ Rs. 1,O50/-) and the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.37,gOO/- (3,150/ x 12 months). As stated supra, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '17'. When the annual salary of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is mulliplied with the relevant rnultipiier, it comes to Rs.6,42,600/- (Rs.37,8OO/- x 2 20\ 7 ACJ 2700 t I 8 t7l Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is Rs.6,42,600/-'

17. of consortium and Rs.2,5OO/ - towards The learned Tribunal awarded Rs' 15'OO0/ towards loss Rs.2,000/- towards ' funeral expenses' loss of estate. However, as Per the in Pranag S,ethi (SuPraf , is entitled to Rs.77,O0O/ - under the appellants / Petitioners conventional heads (Rs'7o'o00/- + 1o7o enhancement thereon) principle laid down towardslossofestate(Rs15,OO0/)'lossofconsortium (Rs.aO,OOOi -) and funeral expenses (Rs 15'OOO/) Though the claimants have claimed compensation of Rs'4'50'OOO/-' it Chandramanl Nolnda a' SaroLt Chandra Suo:in and ornothef, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed' provided it is found to be just and reasonable Thus' the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs'7' 19'6OO/- (Rs.6,a2,600/- + Rs.77,OOO/-)

18. It is to be seen that out of the compensation of Rs.2,23,5O0/-, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,O3,5OO/- to 3 Supra Note 4. ^ t2*)x s.c.R. e20 { 9 petitioner No. 1, who is wife of the deceased and Rs.4O,OOO/_ each to petitioners No.2 to 4; the share of petitioner No.2, who is minor daughter of deceased should be kept as fixed deposit in trank until she attains the age of majority. Further, the learned Tribunal permitted the petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 4 to withdraw half of their respective share and rest of the amount to be kept as hxed deposit in nationalized bank. It is pertinent to note that by this day the time frame hxed by the learned Tribunal with regard to thc deposit part of compensation amount in any nationalized bank and attaining the age of majority has already been completcd and the purpose for which the learned Tribunal \ \ has passed such direction might have been fulhlled.

19. In vievg of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modihed to the extent of above observations.

20. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,23,5OO/- to Rs.7,19,600/-, which shall carry interest (A 7 .5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the 10 compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment' On such deposit' the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are awarded an amount of Rs'3,00'0OO/- each and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are awarded an amount of Rs.59,8OO/- each respectively and they are enti[led to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them without furnishing any security subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation, which is beyond the amount claimed by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if aly, pending shall stand closed SD'. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 'o' ', . -n" chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum -ll Additional District Judoe, Nalgonda at Suryapet' z bit cc lo "sn r. rt nnu' pALAKU RTH I Advocate I-oJ^q 9-1. e. o;; cc io sni. B NARAYANA REDDY Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies GE/gh W I I l I I I I i ; I I HIGH COURT DATED:02/0il2025 I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.698 of 2009 i '..) -i: ,i +../ //t SD. r.,,.I ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS b q \ \