The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following Judgment : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.c. M.A.No.25 of 2015 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed aggrieved by the award dated 10.10.2014, passed in O.P.No.878 of 2OlO by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - XV Additional Chief Judge' Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. Heard Sri V.Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-2 / Insurance Company' Perused the record.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that on 24.12.2012, claimant No.2 along rvith her daughter Pandurangi Mrudhula @) Pandurangi Mrudula Rani, who was studying M.B.B.S. II year in Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal and two others friends of his daughter rvere coming to Hyderabad in their car bearing No.AP 29 AF 9285 and when they reached Raghunathpally Village near Brundhavan Dabha, the driver of the car drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed. Due to which, the car turned turtle, as a result' the daughter of the claimants died on the spot' l 1,N,4, J il.A.(-.!tl.A.No.2 5 of 2015 4. The police, Raghunathapally, registered a case in Crime No.i25 of2009, for the offences under Sections. 304-4 and 337 of IPC. ,

5. The claimants have filed O.P.No.878 of 2OlO before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.30,OO,OOO/- on account of the death of their daughter in the accident. It was contended that the deceased was studying M.B.B.S. II year at Kakatiya Medical College and they have lost their daughter, who r.t as meritorious student, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle; and that if the deceased had completed her graduation, atleast she would have earned a sum of Rs.25,OOO/- per month by rvorking in hospital or setting up own practice.

6. Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2,/ Insurance Company has filed cor-lnter denying age o[ the deceased as well as allegation that the deceased was meritorious student and was studying M.B.B.S. II year at Kakatiya Medical College. It was specifrcally denied that rhe deceased would have earned a sum of Rs.25,00O/- per month. It is linally contended that the amount claimed by the claimants was exorbitant. t J LNA' J M.A.C. M.A.Nq-2, oJf 20 I 5 7 . Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: "1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 24.12.2009 llas ocantred due to the rash and negligent diuing of the driwr of the cime uehicle i.e., car bearing No.AP 29 AF 9285 and u-hether the d"ecea-sed. P.Mrudula died. due to the said accident? Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if 2. so, to what Etantum and whether crim.e uehicLe uas ouned bg ftrst respondent and insured tuith second respondent and u-that is the liabilitg of the respondents? 3. To u-tl.nt reliefr

8. Before the Tribunal, to substantiate the claim, the claimants examined themselves as PWl and PW2 and Exs.Al to A8 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/lnsuralce Company, none was examined, however, Ex.B1/copy of Insurance Policy \va s marked.

9. The Tribunal, on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, uide order dated 1O.lO.2Ol4, has partly allowed the appeal and awarded a sum of Rs.14,18,oO0/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum. Not satisfied u'ith thc compensation arnount, the claimants have liled the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. LNA, I M.A.C.M.A.N0-25 of 20 I 5 Lcarned counsel for the claimants had contended that the 4 lo. Tribuna-l has <'onsidered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,OOO/- pr:r month, which is very meager and the Tribunal should have alleast considered a sum of Rs.25,O0O/- per month as the income of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards consortium. Further, as per the ratio laid dou n by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranag Sethil, the Tribur-ral shouid have ar.t'arded a sum of Rs.4O,0O0/- to each claimant torvards consortium. Tl-rerefore, learned counsel prays this Court to ailou, the appeal ancl enhance the compensation. i I. Per contra, Iearned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company had contended that on due consideration ol'oral and documentaql evidence placed on record, the Tribunal ha:s i-ightly awarded just and pi'oper compensation by taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,OOO/- and that there are no grounds to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in applying the muttiplier '19' instead of '18'. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. | 2otz (61 170 tscl LNA, J M.A.('.M.A.No.25 of 20 I 5 12. Perusal of the record would disclose that the deceased 5 Mrudhula Rani was a medical student, studying M.B.B.S. II year at Kakatiya Medical College and died in the accident that tool< place on 24.12.2009. The Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.\2,OOO/- per month and since the deceased was bachelot, so%o of her income was deducted towards personal expenses.

13. karned counsel for the claimants had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.26877 of 2O79, dated. O5.O7.2O23 in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhau (Dead) through Lrs and others, r,r,herein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the monthly earning of medical student at Rs.25,OOO I - lry following the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Ashuinbhai Jagantilal Modi Vs. Ro:mko,ran Ramchandra Shorrna and another. Further, he relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in CMA-No.1800 of 2Ol9 and batch, wherein, the Madras High Court has considered the rnonthly earnings from Engineering student at Rs- 18,0O0/-'

14. Considering the above judgments, this Court is of the considered view that monthly earning of the deceased can be I,NA, J lv.A.(.lv.A.No.25 or 20I 5 taken at Rs.2;,O00/- as the deceased was pursuing M.B.B.S II 6 year at Kakati5.a Medical College as on the date of her death.

15. The deceased '*,as MBBS II Year student as on the date ol accident and she has to pursue three more years for completing the graduation. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment rcferred, 1 0'L ol monthly income has to be deducted for each uncompleted ,y,:ar. Accordingly, if 3Oo/o of monthl-v income of the deceased is de<lucted, then the income comes to Rs. 17,500/- per month. Having regard to the age of deceased as 20 years as on the date ol accidenr, 4Ot'h of her income has to be inciuded as future prospects as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranag Setht's case supra and the monthly income r.l,ould come to Rs.24,5OO/-;i7.500 + {4O%t of 17,50O)}.

16. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranag Sethi's case supra, in the case of bachelor, 50o/o of her income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, then the income of the deceased w'ould come to Rs. 12,250/- per month and the annual income comes to Rs. 1,47,0O0/-. As the deceased was aged 2O years as on the date of accident, as per the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of So;rlo. Varrna Vs. Delhi 1 L,\,1' J n!. A.C. lt'/. A. i\i o. 2 5 of 20 I 5 Trcrrrsport Corporatlon and anothel the relevant multiplier is '18', however, the Tribunal has erroneously considered the multiplieras.lg,.AsperSchedulelloftheMotorVehiclesAct,if the said annual contribution arrived is multiplied with relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased i'e' '18', the total amount comes to Rs.26,46,4OO1- (1,47,000 x 18)' The claimants are entitled for the said amount under the head of loss of dependency'

17. Further, as per ratio laid down in case of Ptanag Sethi's case supra, each claimant is entitled to Rs'40'0OO/- towards consortium and further, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,O0O/- towa,rds funeral expenses and Rs' 15'OOO/- tou'ards I Ioss of estate

18. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as belolr lBr-No. I I I 2 G lJ. 4 J Name of the Head Loss of de Loss of Estate Loss of consortium Compensation awarded bY the Tribunal Rs.13,68,0OO Rs.25,OOO Funeral Total NSCS RS.25 o00 Rs.14 18,ooo/- Cornpensation awarded bY this Court oJ Rs.26,46,40 Rs.15 oo0 Rs.80,OO0/- (Rs.40,OOO/ - to each claimant Rs. 15,O00 Rs.27,55 4OOl- ' (2009) 6 Scc 121 8

19. In the result, this Appeal compensation awarded by the n . o. r. r. o. * r. r r r?l; rl, is partly allowed and the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. i4, 18,OOO/ - to Rs.2Z,56,4o10 l -. (a) The awardr:d amount shall carry interest at 7.5%o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (b) The respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of eight (8) u,eeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. There shzLll be no order as to costs. pending miscellaneous petitions, if an1,. shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' sd/- K. AliMAJr ASSISTANT RVTRAR SECTION OFFICER Judge, Hyderabad . ( with records ) To 1. The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum- XV Additional Chief 2. One CC to SRI V. ATCHUTA RAM, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 4. T.sro CD Copies kul/gh w t .t f, o o S-TAT€ tt \\[q 16 (,'-'(c nt'qol:' o -} .f' HIGH COURT DATED:03101t2025 + DECREII .IUDGMI'NT MACMA.No.25' of 2015 PARTLY ALLOWING THt, \PPt,;\L WITHOUT COSTS U- (xl*l'r IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A. NO: 25 OF 2015 Between:

1. P.Hanuman Prasad S/o Kutbiguda, Hyderabad Srinivas Rao, Business H.no. 4-5-672 Esamia Bazar,

2. Smt. P.Geeta @ P Qeeta Prasad, Wo. P.Hanuman Prasad, Business H.no. 4-S- 672, Esamia Bazar,'Kutbiguda, Hyderabad ..APPELLANTS/ Claimants AND

1. P.Nagendra Aswath S/o. P,Hanuman Prasad, Occ: Business, Plot No. 41, HCL Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad

2. The Divisional Manager, Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Sagar Complex, Abids, Hyderabad RESPONDENTS/ Respondents Appeal Under Section '173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Order dated 10-10-2014 in o.P.No. 878 of 2010 on the fite of the court of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XV Additionat Chief Judge, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of sri V. Atchuta Ram, Advocate for the Appellant and of sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, SC for Respondent No.2 / lnsurance Company and none appeared for Respondent No. t. This Court doth order and Decree as follows enhanced from Rs. 14,'18,000/- to Rs. 27, 56, 400/-.

1. That the Appeal be and hereby is parfly allowed , 2. That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is 3. That the awarded amount shall carry interest at I .S % per annum ff)m . the date of petition till the date of realization. 4. That the respondents shall deposit the amount with, (8) weeks r"i, r," alt"'.r d;i;i;;p; ffi: ;;#j,?eriod or ersrht

5. That c)n such deposit, the claimants are entifled to withdraw the entire ^ 3lollt as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in'this Appeal. To, Sd/- K. AMMAJI . ASSISTANT" REGISTNAR \/ \y .r il \- .t r\ ll.r , v,-- ,r I !

1. The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XV Additional Chief 2. Two C.D.Copies. Judge, Hyderabad. \y IIIGH COIJRT DATED :0310112025 DEClRl,ll MACMA No. 25 ofl0l i PARTY ALLOWING I HE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.