The High Court · 2025

HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE ITAGESH BHET)I IAPAXA DI.A.C.U.A. No.1478 of 2Ol9 JUDGTEITT: Being not satisfied with the quantum of < rmpensation awarded in tl-re award ald decree, dated 23.O6,2t) .5 passed in M.V.O.P.No.277\ of 2Ol3 on the hle of the M( r )r Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, Cit ' Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellar :s/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhanct r rent of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will t : hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under: The claimants filed a petition under Sectir,r 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming comJn nsation of Rs.2O,OO,O00/- for ttre death of one Lijo Jacolr (l-rereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a r otor vehicle accident. It is stated that on O4.O7.2013 at abou. 1 5:OO hours while the deceased, along with his friends, u.as rc urning from Nagarjun Sagar to Hyderabad in Maruthi Alto )ar bearing No.AP 1O BD 5886, when they reached near turr ing point of \ L 2 NBK, J MACMA_ t 478 2019 Injapur Village, the driver of the Car lost control over the steering on account of his rash and negligent driving, thereby the car was turned turtle arrd the deceased and his friends have sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, where the deceased was succumbed to injuries. On a complaint, the police, Vaaasthalipuram, registered a case in Crime No.54l of 2Ol3 against the driver of the Car for the offences punishable under Sections 3O4_A and 337 of IpC. Ir is also stated t}lat the deceased was hale and healthy and was studying B.Tech 4th year in pufla Reddy Engineering coflege, wargar, Medak district, and due to the sudden demise o[ the deceased, the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased have lost their love and alfection and also their support. As the accident occurred due to rastr and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the claimants filed the claim_petition against the respondents I and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said Car. 4. Before the Tribunal, the I st respondent remained ex parte. The 2oa respondent filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the driver of the Car was not holding valid and effective licence at the time of [-] l I ! 3 NBK, J N t :MA t47a 2019 alleged accident and that the quantum of compenr;: tion claimed is excessive and baseless and prayed to dismiss tJ.: petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribun r framed the following issues:- 1 WletLer the arcident tuhich ocanrec 26.01.2014 at about 7:3O a-m. uas due t;) ond negligent d.riving of tte drtuer of crin t bearing No.AP 1O BD 5889 and decr decea.sed u,as res t of fatal injurtes in accident? Car 'L of ;uclt

2. Wlether tfe petitioner b entitled fo, competlsation and if so, to uhat quantu.nr and to uhom s-uch quantum is recouerable?

3. What relief

6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 wr., e examincd and Exs.Al to A1O and Ex.Xl were marked. On L:half of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced ,ut Ex.Bl- insurance policy was marked. 7 . After considering the oral and documen tz r y cvidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the ir cidenr was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver ol hc Car and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 14,2 l,OOO/, 'r ith inrerest (A.7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till he datc of rea\zation to be paid by the respondents I and 2 ointlv and '! 4 NBK J MACMA_147a_2019 severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be frled by the claimants seeking enhancement.

8. karned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased not the age of his mother for assessing the loss of dependency in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sorla Verma v' Delht Trzrtspott Corporation and anotherl. He also submits that as the deceased was having stable income and in view of his age, the Tribunal ought to have added 4Oo/o of the income towards future prospects as held by the Apex Court in Iilftlonal Insuruce C,ompany Limited Vs. Pianag Sethi and otter*. He further submits that the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, ought to have been granted filial consortium of Rs.4O,OOO/- each in vieu" oI the judgment of the Apex Court in Magm.a Cteneral Ins-urance Compang Linitcd a. Itanru Rortn @ Cluthtl.t Ra:z. ond others3' Thcrefore, prayed to enhance tlte comPensation. g. Irearned Counsel appearing for the lnsurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant. He further submits that the award of ' (zoog) o scc tzl 2 zotz sct 2loo ' (zott) tt scc tlo 5 NBK, J !,IACMA 147a 2019 the Tribunal on loss of consortium and lo s ; of estate is excessive and contrar5r to law laid down by thrr Apex Court in Sarla Vertna ca.x (7 srl,prq) and prayed tt set aside the impugned award.

10. The undisputed facts are that the d,: bachelor aged 2l years, studying 46 year B-TecL eased was a at the time of incident. The learned Standing Counsel for he Insurance Company did not dispute the manner in which th : incident took place and also the negligence of the driver of the )ar in causing the incident. He only disputes the manner n which the calculations were made in respect of compensati rn awarded to the claimants, I I. A perusal of the impugned aqrard would ,how that the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards .oss of futurc prospects. As regard the income of the deceased, he case of the claimants is that the deceased was studying 4ft yt er B Tech. In order to prove the same, tJle claimants got ma:-i ed Exs.Ag to AlO-marks list of three years of B-Tech course. \or,r, as to the income of the deceased Hon'ble the Supreme Co_:t in the case ofDeepak Singh @ Deepak Ghauhan V/s. Mukes r & Ors.a has I 2025 SCC on-line sc 277 6 NBK, J MACMA 1478_2019 considered this aspect of income of an engineering student. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded in Paragraph No.7 which reads as under :- "7. While dealing LDith tfe claim of ampensation of o similarlg plaed indiuidual, i.e., a student in his tuenties, thi.s Court in Horpreet Sirqh (supra) 2 (2011) 1 SCC 343 took exception to equoting the notional tom.e of an Engineering student to that of an un skilled uorker tle follouing tenns - "13. But ue do not think tlnt the notional income oJ a student undergoing a Degree course in Engheering fiom a prcmier institute slnuld be token to be eqtiualent to the minimum uages odmissible to an unskilled tuorker. Students recruited tlvough campus interuiews dre atleast offered a sum of Rs.2O,OOO/ - per month"

12. Considering tJle judgment of ttre Hon'ble Supremc Court in Deepak Slngh ca,x (4 supra), this Court is inclined to hx the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,OOO/ per month lf the deceased is alive he would get escalation o[ his salary/package from year to year, as such, ttris Court is inclined to award future prospects. As per the record, the age of the deceased was 21 years on the date of accident arrd in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in No;tlono,l Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranc;gsethl and others (2 supra), 4Ooh for loss o[ future prospects on his personal income has to be added. Accordingly, if 4oolo is calculated towards loss of future prospects, the total 7 NBK, J M,\ IMA_1478_2019 amount would be Rs. l5,0OO/- + 6,000/_ = 2f ,OO0 I . Sin6e the deceased was a bachelor, his personal living expejt;es shall be 5Oo/o of the said amount, i.e. , Rs. 1O,50O/ _. In ,,iew of the decision of the Apex Court in Munna La.l ,Iatn v. lti oln Kumar Sharma c,nd othersg when the deceased was a br chelor, the age of the deceased has to be considered while det,: mining the multiplier and not the age of the younger parent as contended by the learned counsel for claimants. Since tht: ags qg gh. deceased was 2 1 years at the time of the at:, ident, the appropriate multiplier is ,1g, as per the decision : eported in Sarla Verrno case (l supra). Adopting multiplier I t, his total loss of earnings would be Rs. l0,S0O/ _ x 12 x lg, u I ich comes to Rs-22,68,OOO/-. Apart from the above, tJle ckr arants are entitled to R..36,OOO/- towards loss of estate anc love and affection and in view of the judgment of the Ape: Court in Magma Genero'l Ins:.traace Corryrolr'rg Llmtted. v. I otnu Ram @. Chuhru Ro,m and. others (3 supra) ttre claiman t ; are also entitled to Rs.48,OOO/- each towards filial consortiunr Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.24,O0,000/_.

13. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the nsurance company submits that the claimants claimed only L sum of ' 20 I 5 (6) SCC 347 ,] I I I I ! E NBK, J MACMA_I478_20t9 Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation and the qua-ntum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.

14. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court irt- Laxm-an @ Laxrnan fiIourya. 7s. Ditislonal Manage4 Orlental Insura,nce Corryrang Ltmlted and anothefi and Nagappa Vs. Gurudagal Singhz the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the beneht to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.

15. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs. 14,21,OOO/- to Rs.24,00,OOOI-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from tJ.e date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents I ar.d 2 jointly and severally. The Lime to deposit the said amount is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned between u (zot t ) to scc zso ' u oo: ncr tz 1sc; 9 NBK, J M,\ )MA_t478_2019 the claimants in the same proportion in wh ch original compensation amounts were directed by the Triburu l. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced arnount. There shall be no order as to ccr Ls. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending rhall stand closed. Sd/-[I OSMAN ALI BAIG TANT REGISTRAR fr'. N OFFICER //TRUE COPYI/ \ To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunafcum-\ R'd Citv Civil Court, HYderabad' il'""CC ,;"il'Ka'sireddv Jagathpal Reddy Advocate [ou 5.#6E iI s-n xlt, sruua R"'o Ao'oc"te [oPUC] . Two CD CoPies 2 3 4 AS/kam litional Chief Judge' JCI l I : 1 1 I ? i t t I I HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1478 of 2019 :)lr\1tr '','' ][ J[\\ rts () a :: /l t -r--.,. - .ll:---:- ; ALLOWED 1 \1/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERAEAD [ 33oo ] MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C .M.A.No: 1478OF 2019 Between:

1. Smt. Lissy Jacob, W/o. Jacob Koshy, Aged. t14 years, Occupation. House Wife,

2. Jacob Koshy, S/o. Late Choko Koshy, Aged.48 years, Occupation. Private Service, Both are Residents of H.No.1-18-76/1, M.E.S. Colony, Venkatapuram, Secunderabad ...Appellants/Petitioners AND

1. S. Uday Shanker, S/o. Kallaiah, Aged. Major, Occupation. Business, Riio. Saraswathinagar Colony, Lothukunta, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad.

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Tirumala Towers, Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...ResPondents/ResPondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree dated 23-06-2015 made in M.V.O.P.No.2771 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal+um-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower: Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kasircddy Jagathpal Reddy' Advocate for the Appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for Respondent No

2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 'l . That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tri'bunal is heeby enhanced from Rs.'l 4,2 1,000/- to Rs.24,00,OO0^;

3. That the enhanced arnount will carry interest @ 7 .5''/, pet annum from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date ol ealization, payable by respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally;

4. That the time to deposit the said amount is two mor ths form the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

5. That the enhanced amount shall be apportioned betwe r n the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amourrl ; were directed by the Tribunal;

6. That however, the claimants are directed to pay d,-. icit court fee on the enhanced amount;

7. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sha I stands confirmed in all other respects; and

8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. ,I. OSMAN ALI BAIG ; STANT REGISTRAR Asf //TRUE COPY// \', To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies \-x ^ oFFtcER \sEcTtoN lditional Chief Judge, AS/kam HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 DECREE MACMA.No.1478 of 2019 ALLOWED $ 1N