The High Court · 2025

1. smt. Y. Laxmi Devi, wo subba Rayudu, Age.53 yrs, occ. Business, R/o Ramreddinagar, Near IDPL Colony, Hyderaba-d

2. The New lndia Assurance company Ltd., Rep. its Divl. Manager, 101, lst Floor, Tirumala towers, Malakpet, Hyderabad

3. P. Swathi alias.ctreripally Swathi,, wo Mallikarjun, Aged about 30 years, Occ. House hold, R/o Gattuppal village, Chandur Manda[ Nalgonda Dist?ict ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA no. 1172 ot 2017 : Sri T. Viswarupa Chary Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in both MACMA's : Sri T. Ramulu Counsel for the Appellants in MACMA No. 1288 ot 2O23 and for the respondents 3 to 7 in MACMA No. 1 172 ot 2017 Counsel for the Respondents: : Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NOs.L172OF 2017 & 1288 OF 2024. ON MENT: Both the appeals are filed by the claimant/respondent Nos.3 to 7 assailing the award dated 1,6.06.201,4 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.524 of 2009. Considering the fact that these two appeals arise out of the same award dated 76.06.201,4, these two appeals are taken up together and decided by this corrunon judgment.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts leading to filing of these two appeals are that O.P.No.524 of 2009 was filed under Section 1,66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the wife of Padige Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in an accident against the respondent No.L-owner of the Lorry bearing registration No.AP-Z9- W-7528 (hereinafter referred to as 'crime vehicle'), respondent No.2- insurance company and respondent No.3-Padige Shobha, who is the mother of the deceased. Subsequently, respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, were impleaded. J I LNA,I MACMA Nos.1172 of 2017 & 1288 of 2024 2

4. It is averred that on 06.08.2008 at about 11.30 hours, while the deceased was returning from Hyderabad to Yadagirigutta on his motorcycle bearing regislration No.AP-24-N-4714 and when he reached opposite to petrol bunk of Jodimetla village, the crime vehicle driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased; that deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body, resulting instantaneous cleath. The Police, Ghatkeshwar P.S., registered a case in Crime No.191/2008 under Section 304-4 IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle.

5. The claimant claimed that the deceased was aged about 22 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was doing business and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and used to conlribute the same to the family members and that the said fact was admitted by the respondents 3 to7; that due to sudden demise of the deceased, claimant and respondent Nos.3 to 7 lost their financial, social and moral support and love and affection of the deceased.

6. The respondent no.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2- insurance company filed counter denying all the allegations of claimants, manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity of the \ b a;^1 LNA,J MACMA Nos.1172 of 2017 & 1288 of 202+ 3 deceased. It is further contended that petitioners claimed excessive and exorbitant compensation and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. The respondent No.3 also filed a separate counter and the same was adopted by the respondent Nos.4 to 7

7. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are framed for

1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident on 06.08.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-28-W-1528 ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so from whom ?

3. . To what relief ?

8. To substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.AI to Ex.A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. The T'ribunal, on due consideration of evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and awarded total compensation of Rs.8,30,000/- to the claimant and respondent Nos.3 to 7 along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realtzation against the respondent Nos.1 and2 with proportionate costs LNA,] MACMA Nos.1172 of 2017 & 1288 ol 2o2+ 4

10. Heard Sri T.VishwaruPa Chary, Iearned counsel for appellant/ claimant in MACMA No.tl72 of 2077 and Sri S.Chandraiah, learned counsel for appeltants/respondent Nos.3 to 7 in MACMA No.1288 of 2023 and Sri T.Ramulu, learned counsel or the respondent No'2- insurance comPany. 11,. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for appellants submitted that the Tribunat faited to award just compensation and erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs-5,000/ - per month, which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.3. Learned counsels for appellants contended that Tribunal failed to award comPensation towards future prospects of the deceased, loss of estate and transport charges. They further contended that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount towards loss of consortium, and funeral exPenses and that the Tribunal has also erred in deducAng 1,/3'd of the personal expenses of the deceased and finally, they prayed to enhance the comPensation.

12. It is the specific case of the appellant in MACMA No.1L72 of 2077 that the Tribunal erroneously hetd that respondent Nos.4 to 7 are dependents of the deceased and they are entitled to claim compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA /.--.. LNA,J MACMA Nos.1172 of 2017 & l2EEof 2AI4 5 No.1172 of 2017 further contended that respondent Nos.4 to 7 ate married brothers and sisters of the deceased and are living separately and therefore, they are not dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Leamed counsel further contended that wife and mother of the deceased are only entitled to receive the compensation amount and therefore, prayed to modify the award to that effect.

13. Per contrn, learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company, submitted that the Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly awarded the compensation and needs no interference with the award passed by the Tribunal and finally prayed to dismiss the appeals. Consideration: 1,4. Insofar as the contention of the learn€d counsel for appellants that Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased is concerned, though the appellants claimed that the deceased was doing tent house business and earning Rs.10,000 /- P., month and in support of their contention, P.W.3-Balla Kalidas was examined, no documentary evidence is produced on behalf of the appellants. [n considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of any material in LNA,] MACMA Nos.7l72 of 2077 & 1288 of 2O2+ 6 '\i \ proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- and therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court.

15. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for appellants with regard to the future prospects is concerned, in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and othersl, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph59.4 held as under: "59.4.In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of. 40o/o of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component." 1,6. In view of the above legal position and considering the fact that the deceased was a self-employed and the age of the deceased was below 40 years, 40% of the monthly income of the deceased can be added as future prospects

17. Insofar as the quantum of compensation under conventional heads is concerned, perusal of the record discloses that the Tribunal ' 1zott116 scc 680 LNA,I MACMA Nos.1172 of 2017 & 128801I 2024 7 awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and further Rs.10,000 f - towards funeral expenses. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Raiesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2U"\ 1 SCC (L&S) 1491 . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs L,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor cl'rildren does not exist. Though Raiesh