ETD,,' vs Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Compang

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.581 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed b), thc claimants aggrieved by the O rder and Decree datcd 07.1O.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.1223 of 2011 passed by the Ch:rirman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (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 belore the Tribunal is that the deceased was proceeding on 11.05.2010 at about 6:30 p.m., in an auto bearing No.AP-11-X-3757 from Abids towards Koti and u,hen he reached near Siddartha Hotel Abids, one APSRTC bus bearing No.NP-28-Z-174 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed against their auto lrom behind, due to which the said auto got crushed between the buses bearing No.AP-10-Z-997O and AP-28-Z- 174. As a result, the auto driver received multiple injuries all over the body, and immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and that he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before the TribunEl seeking a compensation of Rs. 14,OO,OOO/-. /' 2 ETD,J MACMA No.581 2021

4. Learned counscl for the respondenl RTC filed counter affidavit denying all the material averments u'ith regard to the age, incomc of the deceascrl arrd thc occurre nce of accide nt. It is hrrthcr contended by them that thc accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligence ol thc drivcr of RTC bus bcaring No.AP-28-Z-

1.71.

5. Based on the abovc pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the follou,ing issues for trizrl 1) Wh,ether the pleaded accident had occuned resulting in death of the deceased,Vanqooree Balo Muralidhar Rao O V. Mural| due to the rash and negligent driuing of the motor uehicle (APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-28-Z-35O5) by its diuer? 2) Whether tlle petitioners are entitled to anA compensation, and, tf so, at uhat quantum and what b the liabilitg of the respondents? 3) To uhat relief

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A4. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,91,000/- as against ttre claim of Rs. 14,0O,OO0/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 3 ETD,] i'/ACMA No.581 2021

8. Heard the submission of Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N. Vasudeva Rcddy, learned Standing Counsel lor APSRTC.

9. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has e rred in awarding a lorv compensation of Rs.5,9 1,OO0/- as against their claim of Rs. 14,OO,000/- and that thc Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be vcry low, 'n'hile the dcceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded very less amounts under various hcads and h:rs failed to consider the transportation expenses, future prospects of thc deceased. He therefore, prayed to cnhance the amount of compensation by allowing this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal ancl therefore, prayed to uphold thc samc. I 1 . Bascrl on t he above rival contentions. this Clourt fr:rmcs t he Ibllorving points lor detcrmination: l. Whether the claimants are entitled for oJ' contpensation a.s praged for? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Tibunal need anu interference? ent ttncement ..f,"

3. To uhat reltej? 4 ETD,,' MACMA No.581 2021

12. POINT NO.1: a) The claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. PWI asscrtcd that the deceased was aged about '35'years and used to earn Rs.25,O00/- as an auto driver and that he also used to do petty business, but no proof is lrled in this regard. ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Compang Limitedt, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,5O0/- pcr month can be safely taken as the income. Though the petitioncr has asserted that hc is an auto driver, no evidence is placed on record. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/ - per month. b) As per the dicta laid dou,n in National Insuro,nce Comtrtang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and Others2, 4O'% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the dcceased is aged'35' years adding 4oolo towards future prospccts would give to Rs.6,30O/- (Rs.4,500 + (Rs.4,50O x 4Ookl per month, which comes to Rs.75,6OO/- per annum (Rs.6,30O x 12). ' (2ol l) 12 scc 236 '? ArR 20r}SCC 5157 5 ETO,J MACMA No.581 2021 I c) The number of claimants herein are three and thcrefore, l/3ta deduclion need to be made in his income tou,ards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.50,4OO/ - (Rs.75,600 - (Rs.75,600 x I /3)) cl) The Post Mortem Examination report filcd under trx.A4 reveals the age of the deceased as 35 years. Therelbre, the age as rcvealed unclcr Ex.A4 is taken into consideration. The multiplicr should be chosen with regard to the age of thc clr:ceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sorlrr Vermd o. Delhi Transport Corporation3. The deceased being aged 35 ycars, thc appropriate multiplier to be applied is'16. Therefore, the loss of dependency as calculated by the Tribunal holds good i.e. to the cxLcnt of Rs.8,06,4O0l- (Rs.50,400 x 16). e) In thc light of Pranag Sethi's case, Rs. 15OO()/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,O00/- to$,ards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss ol consortium have to be awarded and further the saicl amounts have to be enhanced by LO'k every three years. 0 In Magma General Insurance Compang Limited. v. Na,nu Ram @ Chuhttt Ro,m and othersa, the Apex Court has elaborately ' :ool 16y scc t: t '1:ors; ls scc t:o 6 ETD,,J MACMA No.581 2021 discussed the principles laid down in Pranag Sethi's 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. Thereforc, in the present case, the ciaimants would gct Rs.48,000/- each lowards loss of consortium, hence, the compensaLion amount under this head would be Rs.l,44,OOO/ . With regard to amounts to be granted under the heads of funeral expenscs Rs. 18,00O/ and loss ol estate Rs. 18,000/- would be just and proper. g) Therefore, in all the claimants are entitled to the follos,ing compensation amounts: - SI. No. Name of the Heads i l 3 I Loss of dcpenclency I,oss of consortium I-oss of Estatc Loss of Funeral Expenses Total Awarded by this Court Rs. a 06,400l. 1 44 ooo 18 ooo/- 18,OOO/ - 9 86 4OO/- I h) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitlcd to is calculated as Rs.9,86,4O0/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,91,OO0/- Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO.2: { In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modifired by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,91,OO0/- to Rs.9,86,400/-. I I I I ETD,J MACMA No.581 2021 Point No.2 is answered accordingly. l+. POIN'I'NO.3: In the result, the MACMA filed by the appellants is partly allorved, modifying the order and Decree datecl 07. 1O.20 13 in M.V.O.P.No. 1223 of 20 1 I passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribtrnal-cum-tX Additional Chief Judge, Crty Civil Court at Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,91,000/- to Rs.9,86,400,r and the enhanced amount of coml)ensation shall carry interest (4: 7 .5 "1, per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. Holcver, the interest for the period of delay, il'any, is forfeited. Respondcnt No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount rvith accrued interest within a period of tu,o months from tl-re 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 withoul furnishing an-y security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closcd. //TRUE COPY// \ SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, + -r-' /,- 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With records) ditional Chief Judge, 2 One CC to Sri Kasi Reddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate IOpUC] 3. One CC to Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies .{ s,'t) t_ HIGH COURT DATED: 2810312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.581 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING WITHOUT COSTS //z ,t3 /za tt( t ?l-\ \) c) ,J -* .c; i 0! I 2025 * PATC !i ..4 ;! IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF IVIARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 581 OF 2021 Between:

1. Smt V.Sabita, Hyderabad, W/o Late Vangooree Bala Murlidhar Rao @ V.lVlurali aged 33 years, occ. Housewife, R/o Plot No. 160, Road No.2, Janardhan Nagar, Bupesh Nagar, Hyderabad

2. Master lndraneel, S/o Late Vangooree Bala Murlidhar Raoor @ V.Murali aged 16 years, occ. Student,

3. Master Chandra Neel, S/o Late Vangooree Bala Murlidhar Rao @ V.lvlurali, aged 14 years, occ. Student, ( Petitioners 2 and 3 being minor rep. by her mother guardian Smt. V.Sabita) ( AII R/o Plot No. '160, Road No.2, Janardhan Nagar,Bupesh Nagar, Hyderabad ) AND 1 2 The Managing Director and another, APSRTC, RTC X roads, Hyderabad. The Depot Manager, HCU Depot, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/Petitioners ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in lt/.V.O.P No. 1223 of 2011 dated 711012013 on the frle of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Principal Additional Chiei 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 Kasi Reddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate for the respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the lvlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowed modifying the order and decree dated 07/10/2013 in tvl.V.O.P No,1 223 of 201 1 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5,91,000/- to Rs.9,86,400/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annunr from the date of claim petition till realization.

2. That however the interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited.

3. That the Respondent No.3 is be and here by directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

4. That on such deposit the appellants are be and hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security as per the respectlve shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL D:PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \\ ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accicient Claims Tribunal-cum City Civil Court, Hyderabad dirional Chief Judge,

2. Two CD Copies / ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 2810311t025 DECREE MACMA.No.58l of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING WITHOUT COSTS 4 1z /3 ,//,,/