The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.2804 of 2OL7 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned cournsel for the appellants/ claimants and Sri Harinath Reddy So:rr a, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellantsr/claimants aggrieved by the au'ard passed by the learned XIIL\ddl Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, HyderabiLcl (for short the Tribunal'), in M.V.O.P.No.1313 of 2014, dated 30.C1 20i7.

3. The claim petition was filed by the appellants on account of death of one B. Mrutyunjai in an accident which tc'll< place on

22.03.2014 at B.45am near Reddv's Laboratories. I:iachupally, Quthbullapur Mandal, Hl'derabad, Cyberabad District

4. Upon consiclering the evidence adduced by the cl:r.mants, the Tribunal avarded compensation of Rs.6,18,000/- with interest at 9%o per annum as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/-.

5. The occurrence of accident and liability of the res;pondents to pay compensation are not in dispute. I I 2 6 The only ground for filing the appeal is that the claim petition is liled seeking compensation of Rs. 12,oo,ooo/_ \/hereas the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.6,lg,00O/_ with rnterest at 9ok per annum. 7 In the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the rncome of the deceased is taken as Rs.70,000/- per annum instead of Rs.15,000/- per month as he was u,orking in hotel situated at DRL Project in Compass Group India Service Ltd. Further, proper consortium is not awarded. Hence, this appeai seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 52 years and the same is challenged alleging that the deceased was aged about 50 years on the date of accident. On this count, documentary evidence is defectr've shou,ing the age of the deceased as 35 years in the charge sheet. In fact, the entire crime record shows the age of the deceased as 35 years. At the time of fiting the claim petition, the age of the deceased is shown to be 5O years. The Tribuna-l compared the age of appellant No.2 (daughter of .deceased) at 24 years and arrived the age of deceased at 52 years which does not have any basis except comparison. Additionalty, the age as 3 deposed by PW L is that is that the deceased was agel 52 years. On the basis of eviclence of PW1, the age of the deceased ir,' taken as 52 years and this Court does not find any reason to int"rfere with the said .finding given by the learned Tribunal. The admi,ttrd facts need not be proven as per Section 58 of the Indian Evide:r::e Acl, 1872. PW1 i.e. wife of the deceased has filed an affidavit staLng the age of the deceased tc be 52 years and therefore, the appeilants now cannot retract their ou,n statement and claim age of the deceased to be 50 vears.

9. Coming to the aspect of income of the deceas,:d, the wife of the deceased deposed that he had rncome of Rs -5,000 l- per month b1'r.r,orking as a Steward in DRL Project in Corn tass Ground (lndia) Services, As per police record, the deceased ri'i, s a contract employee n'orking as a Canteen boy. There can be no e.<pectation of payment of Rs.15,000/- per month as a Canteen bor'. Hence, the notional income of the deceased in the year 2074 as 'r Canteen boy is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. The number of d:l:rendants are '2'in number and therefore, 1/3.d of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The learned Tribunal fzLi,ed to award future prospects to the income of the deceased. 4

10. Considering the monthly income at Rs.6,000/_ and age of the deceased as 52 years as on the date of accident, as per judgment of the Hontrle Supreme Court in Nctfional Insurance Co. Ltd,, Vs, Pranag Sethi and othersl, if future prospects at lOoh i.e., Rs.600/- is added to the monthly income, the net monthly income comes to Rs.6,600/- (Rs.6,0OO/_ + Rs.600/_). From the net annual income of Rs.79,2oo/- (Rs.6,600xr2), if 1/3rrr is deducted towards personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be Rs.52,BOO/_. If the said amount is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier ,1 I , as was rightly taken by the Tribunal relying on Smt. Sarla Varma Vs.. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the total compensation under the head of loss of dependency' would be Rs.5,g0,gOO/_ instead of Rs.5, 13,OOO/_ which was awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the learned rribunal has awarded art arnount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.3O,O0O/- for funeral expenses arrd Rs.25,0 OO / _ for loss of estate. However, in vieu, of pranay Sethi,s case (I supraf, the said finding is set asr'de. This Court is of the considered opinion that claimants are entitled to Rs.33,OO0/_ towards funeral expenses and loss of + 7oo/o enhancement thereon). In estate (Rs.30,000/- \ '1zorz; ro scc oao '(2009) 6 s.c.c. 121 5 addition thereof, claimants who are wife ald ditr_ghter of the deceased are entitled Rs.44,000/_ each towards consor.tium. 1 I . In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the r;laimants are entitled to the following amounts under different hea<fu;: { I Head (1) Loss of dependency (2) Funeral expenses and Loss of Estate Compensatiorr awarded Rs.5,80,800/ - Rs.33,000/- I I (3) Loss of spousal consortium Rs 44,000/- for. ,,tppellant (4) Loss of parental consortium Rs.44,00O/- for appellant Total compensation awarded Rs.7,O1,8OO/-

12. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneor-rr Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount au.a rded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,18,OOO/_ to Rs.7,O1,gOO/- as hereun,ler: a) The compensation amount shall carry inter.est at 9ok p'a. from the date of petition tilr the date of r.eirlization. b) The respondent Nos.1 arrd 2 shall rlt:posit the compensation amount along with interesrt within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. 6 c) On such deposit, the appellants/ claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount in proportion to their shares awarded by the Triburnal, without furnishing the security. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// d/. A.V.S. PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER The Chairman, MACT-Cum-Xill Additionat Chief Jud Court, Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. JAGATHpAL REDDy KASt REDDy Advocate tOpUCl (FTC), City Civil To, ,

3. Two CD Copies s MKN HIGH COURT RY,J DATED:1 910612025 t I JUDGMENT E SIAf.e o () I MACMA.No.2804 ot 2017 n :s'. PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A ?A IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS CELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2804 OF 20'17 Between: (CT Vide Separate Sheet Attached) 1 , Smt. B.Hemalatha, W/o late Mrutyunjaya, Aged 42 years; €cc Household, 2. B.Savithri, D/o Late Mrutyunjaya, Aged 26 years, Occ Household, (Both are Rl/o h.no.3-43-1, Balaiah Complex Bollaram, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, Presently Fl/o H.No,3-4-5/ 13, Dr.Bhoomanna Lane, Kachiguda' Hyderabad,) ,..APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 1 2 l\,4ohd. Yousuf, S/o Mohd. lsmail, Aged major, Occ Business, R/o H.No.2-265/ 1, Sai nagar, Old Hafeezpet, Serilingampally ltrlandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited,, represented by its Divisional Manager, 3rd floor, Kindas Estate, Reddy Hotel Road, Adjacent to Jaya lnternational Hotel, Abids. ... RESPONDENTS (Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P. No. 1313 of 2014 dated 30.01 .2017 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Qum-Xlll Addl. Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY' Advocate for the Appellant and of the Respondent No.2 Advocate SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA and of the Respondent No.1 none appeared either in person or by Advocate. This Court both Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the M.A.C.M.A., be and hereby is Partly allov,erl enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,18,00(r/. to Rs.7,01,800/-. 2. That the Compensation amount shall carry interest @ 9%P.A , from the date of Petition till the date of realization,

3. That the respondent Nos, 1 & 2 shall deposit the compensation amount along with interest within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of Co6,y of Judgment.

4. That on such deposit the Appellants/ Claimants are entitle(l to Withdrawn the entire amount in proportion to their shares awarded by Tribun;rl without furnishing the Security.

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall sta r(is confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SCi- A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR L SE:CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairmar, MACT-Cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge (F1 C:), City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2, Two CD Copies M g HIGH COURT RY,J DATED:1910612025 I I DEGREE MACMA.N o.2804 ot 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A { i