The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Bebitai Ashokrao Jannawar, Wife of Ashok rao Madhavrao Jannawar, Aged about 55 years, Occ: House hold.

2. Anil Ashokrao Jannavar, S/o Sri Ashokrao Madhavarao Jannawar, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Un employed Both are Native of Ambikanagar, Behind Radhika Complex, Darwha Village, Yavatmal District, Maharashtra-44s 202 presenfly Residing at H.No.8-1- 22131 A, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. RESPONDENT No.1 and 2/ PETITTONERS

3. Motiram Babu Kauthkar, S/o Babu, Aged Major, Occ: Business R/o AP Penur Village, Loha Tehsil, Nanded District. Maharashtra- 431 601. (Ownerof Toofan Jeep bearing No. MH-26-AK-6317)

4. Vilas Balaji Dalve, S/o Balaji. Dalve, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Driver of Toofan R/o Wadapuri Vilalge, LohaTehsil, Nanded District, Maharashtra 431- 606, (Driver of Toofan Jeep bearing No. MH-26-AK-631 7) ...RESPONDENTS 3 AND /URESPONDENT NOS.1 ANd 3. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY' Counsel'for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRl. PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT i i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI M.A.C.M.A No.17OO OF 2O24 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been preferred challenging the decree and order dated 0J.08.2024 in M.V.O.P.No.5B5 of 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter'the Tribunal').

2. Heard Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the a ppella nt/respondent No.2/Insurer and Mr. Pallati Chandramouli, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/petitioners.

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that, on 07.08.2018, at about

4.20 AM, while Ashokrao Madhavrao Jannawar/deceased was proceeding in a Toofan Car bearing Registration No.MH 26 AK 6317 towards Tirupathi, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and collided with one Lorry that was proceeding in the same direction, resulting in his death. The wife and son of the deceased filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the merits of the case, awarded Rs.20,60,000/- with 60lo interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would fairly submit that there is no dispute in regard to liability but in assessment of- compensation, the age and income of the deceased were accounted by l 2 NTR,J MACMA No.'1700 of 20 the Tribunal without basis and against the record. These aspects, therefore, require reconsideration.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents/claim petitioners fairly admitted that the record filed by the claim petitioners; reflects the age of the deceased as 62 years. However, pleaded that though the petitioners failed to place any evidence proving the monthly incorne of the deceased, the deceased was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month by running a Bakery Business. Nonetheless by unreasonable guess work, the Tribunal restricted the monthly income at Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, prayed for revising the income of the deceased and for granting just compensation.

6. I have perused the material on record.

7. The point arises for determination is whether t1e age and income used for calculatinq the compensation are reasonable

8. The First Information Report (FIR), Charge Sheet, Inquest and Postmortem Report are reflecting that the deceased ',vas aged about 62 years. However, the Tribunal has considered the age to be 55 years. Having regard to lhis position and in the light of fai- admission by the respondents' counsel, the relevant age of the deceaserd is mended as 62 years. 3 NTR,J MACtulA No.1700 of 2024 'I

9. In regard to the earnings, the petitioners submitted a registration certificale for running food products business under the name and style of M/s. Jannawar Food Products and the manner of business has been reflected as Retail. However, for the reasons best known, no document has been placed by the petitioners to prove the income. In that position, the income has to be derived on guess work. Having regard to the l l.i I relevant occupation as a retailer oF food products, and by the aEe, it can be reasonably presumed that the deceased would have contributed in managerial aspects of the business. For loss of such services, the monthly income needs valuation. Having this reason, taking the daily income of the deceased at Rs.600/- and monthly income at 18,000/- is found just and proper.

10. As the dependents are two in numbe r, if l/3'd is deducted towards the personal living expenses, the deceased's annual contribution to the family would be Rs.1,44,000/-, As the deceased was more than 60 years, future prospectus would not be applicable (See National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and othersl). Thus, the contribution of the deceased to the family i.e., multiplicand if multiplied with the relevant multiplier applicable to his age as per the judgment of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anoinel i.e.'7', the total would come to Rs.10,08,000/-. i ' (20r7) t6 scc 86() '2009 ACj ,29{i 4 NTR,J MACN.4A No.1700 of

11. In addition, as per the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Seftri (supra) and llnited India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others3, the respond ents/ petition e rs are entitled for spousal and parental consortium at Rs.4t,400/- each and Rs.18,150/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively. t2. However, considering the pleading that, after the accident and death, the deceased was shifted to his native place i.e., Ambikanagar, Yavatmal District, State of Maharashtra and although no specific document has been filed, considering the probable expense granting Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of the deerd body is found a pprop riate.

13. Accordingly, the respo ndents/petitio n ers are entitled for compensation as under: Descri ption Loss of dependency Spousal and parental consortium to the respective petitioners @ Rs.48,400/- each Loss of estate and funeral ex ENSCS Tra ns ortatio l elpens ES TOTAL Amount awarded (in rupeds) 10 OB 000.00 9rj,800.00 36 300.00 20,000.00 1 1..,.61 100.00 3 2021(11) scc 780 5 NTR,J MACMA No.1700 of 2024

14. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. The respondents/petitioners are entitled for Rs.11,61,100/- with 7.5olo interest per annum. The ratio of apportionment among the respo n d ents/petitio n e rs shall remain as per the impugned order. The appellant/respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the differential amount within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the above terms, the impugned decree stands modified. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall closed To Sd/- A.SREENIVAS ASSISTANT RE EDDY ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Jud ge c'iY ; fil$t $lifrffiilffi;il,'*;"1fr#r w HIGH COURT DATED:0610112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1700 of 2024 ALLOWED 4dP@" X$, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1700 OF 2024 Between: The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Motor Third Party Claims Hub, Fifth Floor, G Block, Surya Towers, S.P.Road, Secunderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2 AND '1. Smt. Bebitai Ashokrao Jannawar, Wife of Ashok rao Madhavrao Jannawar, Aged about 55 years, Occ: House hold. l

2. Anil Ashokrao Jannavar, S/o Sri Ashokrao Madhavarao Jannawar, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Un employed Both are Native of Ambikanagar, Behind Radhika Complex, Darwha Village, Yavatmal District, Maharashtra-445 202 Presently Residing at H.No.8-1- 2213 I A, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. RESPONDENT No.1 and 2/ PETITIONERS

3. Motiram Babu Kauthkar, S/o Babu, Aged Major, Occ: Business R/o AP Penur Village, Loha Tehsil, Nanded District, Maharashtra- 431 601. (Owner of Toofan Jeep bearing No. MH-26-AK-6317)

4. Vilas Balaji Dalve, S/o Balaji. Dalve, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Driver of Toofan R:/o Wadapuri Vilalge, LohaTehsil, Nanded District, Maharashtra 431-606, (Driver of Toofan Jeep bearing No. MH-26-AK-6317) ...RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4/RESPONDENT Nos.1 and 3. Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in M.V.O.P.No.585 OF 2019 dated. 0'1.08.2024 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. -a=tt-*,:: / 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 RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the appellant and of SRl. PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and None Appeared for the Respondent Nos 3 and 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as.follows

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed;

2. That the respo ndents/petitioners be and hereby are entifled for Rs.1 i ,61 ,1 OO/- with 7.5% interest per annum;

3. That the ratior of apportionment among the respondents/petitioners shall remain as per the impugned orders;

4. That the appellanurespondent No.2 be and hereby is directed to deposit the differential amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order; and

5. That there shail be no order as to costs in this appeal. 6. -ft^f -ti*- lmpqi,lod decvoe 5{o.rrd2, 'r-t oAq{ca 3rr *}-'c atove tq''va4 //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.SREENIVASA ASSISTANT REG EDDY TRAR To SECTION OFFICER

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City 2. Two CD Copies Civil Court at Hyderabad. Y>/ HIGH COURT DATED:0610112025 DECREE MACMA.No.1700 ot 2024 ALLOWED \ ,reI tt-.<^. -.-r.l\"((