The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.47 3 0F 2016 JUDGMENT: This appeal is fiied by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree daled 24.02.2012 in M.V.O.P No.30 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (for short "the Tribunal")

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on

25.06.2009 at about 4:00 p.m., the deceased was going on his cycle from Kamareddy to Rameshwarpally Village and when he reached near NH-7 High way at Rameshwarpally outskirts, one Maruthi Car bearing NoAP-13-G-976 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle, as such he fell down and the car ran over him, due to which he suffered multiple grievous injuries and died while being shifted to the Government Hospital, Kamareddy The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. I I

4. The respondent No.'1 remained ex-parte. 2 ETD,J MACMA No.473 2016

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. lt is further contended that the driver of the car did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident, hence their company is not liable to pay any compen sation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- ',1 2 Whether the accident dated 26.06.2009 $/as due to rash and negligent driving of the Manthi Car bearing No.AP-13-G-976 by its driver? Whether the petitioners are entitled tor compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PWl and Exs.Al to 46 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.Bl was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,99,0001. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. \ 3 ETO,J MACMA No.473 2016

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Nandan Sharma PVB, learned counsel representing Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. V. Durga, learned counsel for the respondents

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was deriving an income from agriculture and also he was working as a Coolie and hence, his income may be assessed as per the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Company Limitedl . He further argued that the tribunal has assessed the income to be very low as Rs.3,000/- per month and has awarded very meagre amount of compensation. He further argued that the loss of consortium also has not been awarded by the tribunal, hence, prayed to enhance the compensation by awarding the same. 11 Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that, there is no proof of income filed in this case and thus, I I the tribunal has rightly assessed the income to be Rs.3,000/- per month in case of an agricultural coolie. He further submitted that 40o/o of future prospects can be granted as per the guidelines by the I I ' 1zo r ry tz scc:lo I 4 ETD,J MACMA No.473 2016 Apex Court in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sefhi & Others.z

12. ln view of the above contentions. the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any inteierence ? To what relief ?

3. 13. Point No.1: a) PW1 is the wife of the deceased. She asserted that her husband used to earn around Rs.10,0001 per month from agriculture and labour work. No proof can be expected in this regard bI ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Company Limited, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas's case, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,500/- Per month. 2 AtR 2017 SCC 5157 '(2ot t) t2 scc 236 5 ETD,J MACMA No.473 2016 c) As per the dicta laid down in National lnsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Othersa, 40o/o of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged '36' years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 4500+1,800 would give Rs.6,3001- per month, which comes to Rs.6,300/- x 12 = Rs.75,6001 per annum. d) Since the claimants are five in number, the deduction that has to be made is 1/4th from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.56,700/- (Rs 75,600 (-) 18,900/-). e) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporations, the deceased being aged '36' years, the appropriate multiplier is '15'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.8,50,500/- (Rs.56,700 x 15). f) ln the light of Pranay Sethis case, Rs.150004 towards loss of estate and Rs.15,0001 towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,0001 a I 1 AIR zo17 scc s157 t 2ooe 16; scc rz r I 6 ETD,' MACMA No.473 2016 towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years S) ln Magma General lnsurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others', the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethis case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants and would get Rs.48,400/- each, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.2,42,0001 instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,1501 towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. h)' ln all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amou nts:- I 2 3 4 Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Compensation towards loss of consortium to the petitioner Compensation towards loss of estate Rs,8,50,500/- Rs.2,42,000/- Rs.18,150/- I I I Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total Rs.{ 1,28,800/- olzottyt8scct3o I l i l ETO,J MACMA No.473 2016 i) Thus, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.'1 1,28,800/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,99,0001. Iherefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation Hence, point No l is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- It is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.11,28,8001- from that of Rs.3,99,000/- that is awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly ) I

15. Point No.3.- ln the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, modifying the_Order and Decree dated24.02.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidenl Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,99,0001 to 11,28,8001 and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee.The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a \ l I I ! I I \ I 8 EIO,] MACMA No.473 2015 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount as per their respective shares as allotted by the tribunal, without furnishing any security. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY SISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER I To. 1 The Chairman. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tri District and Sessrons Judge, Kamareddy (With-recold One CC to SRI AKKAM ESHWAR Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI V. DURGA Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. G. MANOHAR Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Co pres 2 3 4 5 GE/ABK u S. nal-cum-lX Additional if any) I HIGH COURT DATED:1 2/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.473 of 2016 F .E .,) ({;L4,lN s s I \ t.) 'r' PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS @ 6\\\rr,'