The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI N J SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.I: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.2055 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is hled against the Order dated }O.O9.2O1O in M.V.O.P.No. 1685 of 1999 passed by the learrr d Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief JurI 1e, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The petition uide M.Y.O.P.No.1685 of 199) the appellants/ petitioners claiming coml) was l-rled by nsation of Rs.2,65,OO0/ - for the death of the deceased A.Ma I :sh, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.12.1 Court got examined P.Ws. I and 2 on t r )98. The trial half of the appe [ants/ petitioners and got marked Exs.A 1 I r A6 on their behalf. R.W. 1 was examined on behalf of the rer; rondents and got marked Exs.Bl to 85 on their behalf. The tri Ll Court after considering the oral and documentary eviden: : on record, granted compensation of Rs.1,92,O00/- along ui h interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of petition t il realizatior, . Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner therein rreferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the r ompensation amount granted by the trial Court. ) 3, Parties hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenlence.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.12.199g, the deceased was proceeding in a lorry bearing No.Ap 1l T 6g72, as cleaner from Rajahmundry to Vizag. The driver of ttre said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it and dashed against the lorry bearing No.AET 2475, which was coming in opposite direction. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police of Gandepalli, registered a case in Crime No.97 of 1998, under Sections 33g and 3O4_A of IpC, against the driver of the said lorry. 5 Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that respondents No.l and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, but the trial Court held that driver of the lorry had no valid driving license, as such fixed liability only against respondent No. l. Therefore, requested the Court for pay J and recovery and further requested for enhar < ement of the compensation amount granted by the trial Court

7. Admittedly, respondent No.1 is the owner zu Ld respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry. The respondent I lo.1 is having valid insurance policy with respondent No.2 as < n the date of accident. The petitioners have frled the present O P, in the year 1999 and the appeal was filed in the year 2010. 1r the M.V.O.p is a benehcial legislation, this Court hnds that t is just and reasonable to direct the Insurance Comparr./ to pay the compensation amount and recover the same frorr the owner of the vehicle.

8. Pemsal of the record shows that the decea ted was aged about 20 years, working as cleaner of the lorry and earning Rs.2,OOO/- per month and thus the annual r come of the deceased would comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,C t O I - X 12 = Rs.24,00o/-).

9. As per the guidelines of the Hon,ble Apex C: rrt in dictum of Sarlq. Vennq. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpon tion,r if the deceased was unmarried, hatf of his income has r be deducted ' lzooe; o scc rz r 4 towards his personar expenses. Thus, the annuar income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would comes to Rs. 12,OOO/- per annum (Rs.24,0OO _ Rs. 12,OOO: Rs.12,OOO/_) and tlre Hon'ble Apex court in the dictum of Nationar Insttrance Compang Limttcd. Vs. pranolg Sethp, held that the future prospects of income of the self_employed shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e., 2O years, 4}oh of t.ne rncome i.e., Rs.4,800/- has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs. 16,80O/- (Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 16,800/-). This sum if multiplied with the multiplier 1g applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 20 years, it would come to Rs.3,02,40O/_ (Rs. 16,800 x 18 = Rs.3,02,4OO / -1. Thus, petitioners are entitled to Rs.3,O2,40O/- under the head .Loss of Dependency,. Rs.4,800/- +

10. Besides, appellants/petitioners are also entitled for compensation under tonventional heads, as prescribed in the dictum of Nqtional Insurance Company Ltmlted. Vs. pranag Sethi, i.e., Rs. 15,OOO/- towards loss of Estate and Rs. 15,O0O/_ towards funeral charges. Therefore, they are entitled for Rs.3O,O00/ - under Conventional heads,. '?(20t7) r6 scc 680 ( / 5 1 1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by :r iterating the comprehensive interpretation of tonsortium' 5 Lven in the authority of Magma Genero,l Ins'urance Cornpar:l ' Llrnlted as. Nd.nu R.a,rlr Alias Chuhru Ro,m & others3, and irr lhe auttrority between United India Instrance Comltang Limited as. Satinder Kaur @ Satuinder Kaur and otlterd,, the amounts for loss of consortium shall be al fortifred that rrded to the children who lose the care and protection of th: r parents as 'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'fi1i r consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to conr rcnsate their agony, love and affection, care and companionsh i children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonat r of deceased te to award Rs.4O,0OO/- each to the petitioners under'Filial Cc rsortium'.

12. Therefore, petitioners/claimants are enli led for the compensation in the following terms: 1 2 J Loss of dependency Rs.: ,,02,400/- Conventional heads Filial Consortium @ Rs.40,0O0/- each Rs 30,0OO/- Rs 80,000/- TOTAL p5 ,.,12,4OOl- t o 1zor8; t8 scc ro lzozo; I scc o++ 6

13. In the result, the present appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 1,92,O00/_ to Rs.4,12,400/- (Rupees Four lakhs TWelve Thousand Four Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the date of frling the petition till the date of realization. Though, Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, respondent No.2/Insuralce Company is directed to deposit the entire arnount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and they are at libert5r to recover the same from respondent No. l/owner. It is stated that appellant No. l/petitioner No.l died during the pendency of the appeal, as such the appellant No.2/petitioner No.2 is permitted to withdraw the entire a,',o,nt along with interest accrued on it. Appellantsr/petitioners are also directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Chi Court, Hyderabad. sd/- A.v.s.P PUTY R ECTION OFFICER udge, City Civil

2. One CC to SRl. AELLA MADHAVA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N J SUNIL KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies MKN YT, ----- HIGH COURT PSS,J DATED:0910412025 i:: E _,,i t 7rf'' < r(t' 'lr?i ,t: /, I Jl r: ) '(t :.it ',/ r)s..-..-., .- '.t ' r ' t.- - '' ,: :-:.i :^_..:. JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2055 of 2010 ALLOWING THE MACMA 6coC'b X6"' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 2055 OF 2010 Between:

1. Sailoo S/ Mallesham [Died], 2. Smt.A.Ramulamma, W/o.Sailoo Housewife R/o'Umapuram Village, Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 1 . S.Laxma Reddy, S/o.Narayana Reddy gwlgr-ol Lorry Bearing No'AP 11 T 6872 R/o.Anaji6ur, Opp.Temple, Ranga Reddy District.

2. National lnsurance company Limited, rep by its senior Divisional Manager O/o.DO-IV, ll Floor, City Coniplex, Abids, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.v.o.P.No.1685/1999, dated 30.09.2010, on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- chief Judge, city civil Court, Hyderabad. ORDER: This appeal 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. A MADHAVA REDDY' Advocate for the Appellant and of the Respondent No.2 Advocate sRl N J SUNIL KUMAR and of the Respondent No.1 none appeared either in person or by Advocate. This Court both Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 1,92'000/- to Rs.4,12'zt00l (Rupees Four Lakhs Twerve Thousand Four Hundered o rry) with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing the petition till the date of r,; rlization.

2. That the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are Joinfly and Sev: afiy riabre to pay Compensation.

3. That the Respondent No.2 rnsurance company is be an i hereby directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of (1) Month fro r the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and they are liberty to reql er the same from respondent No. 1 /Owner. 4' That the apperrant No.1/petitioner No.1 died during the pendency of the appear, as such the appeilant No.2/petitioner No.2 is be Ar J hereby permitted to Withdraw the entire amount along with interest accurse<l rn it.

5. That the AppellanuPetitioners are arso directed to pay the r eficit court fee on the enhance amount.

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunar shafl s ands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The Chairman lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_ Court, Hyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies MKN tk c t A.V.S.PRASAD ] JTY RE I CTION OFFICER J rdge, City Civit INfi \\s \er HIGH COURT PSS,J DATED:0910412025 DECREE MACMA.No.2055 of 2010 ALLOWING THE MACMA q .qda T q,