The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the A rpellants: Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy Counsel for the Rr:spondents 1 to 4: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No. S: Sri N. Mohan Krishna The Court delivere d the following JUDGMENT: HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN AND M.A.C.M.A.No.275 OF 2OL9 JUDGMENT: 1 . Dissatished with the Accident Ciaims Tribunal - cum - xxv Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter be relerred as 'the Tribunal') in compensation awarded by the Motor . M.V.O.P.No.1392of2Ol2,dated31'08'20lT,theclaimpetitioners in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancementofcompensationandfiledl.A.lof2024requestingto amend the claim amount from Rs 25,O0,OOO/- to Rs 4O'O0'0OO/-

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal' 3'Thebrieffactsofthecasearethattheclaimpetitioners,who are the mother, father and elder brother of Late P Naga Chandrasekhar @ Chandu (hereinafter be referred as 'the deceased') hled a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act' 1988 claiming compensation of Rs'25,0O,OOO/ - for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on the intervening night of 21122'03 2Ol2 at about l33O hours near Bowenpally, Hyderabad. It is stated by the petitioners that on the intervening night of 21 122 'O3 '2012 at about 13 3O hours' when the deceased-P.Naga Chandrasekhar @ Chandu along with others MGP J I No I ol2A24 hlahd Macha No 275of2o19 was proc redirlg in Chevrolet Car Bear-ing No.Ap O9_CE;_8110 from Suchitra touzLrds Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad on N.H..1.4 road and when tht cit: reached Bowenpally cantonment area one Lorry bearing N o.At,- 16-TU- 1 16O, which was parked in rhe middle of the ioad wir-h cut any indicators and parking lights, ,vas not visible to the driver of the said car as it was dark and the re we:e no street lights. As su<:l-r, the car rammed into the parked ltrry. .lhough driver ol' < ar applied breaks, but due to sudden vision r,f the lorry, the car oc uld not be controlled at once. As a result, r-he deceased sustained grrevous injuries to his Head and all over his body. Immediatr [y, Lre was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, S,:cundt:rabad and while unr ergoing treatment, the deceased wa!; suc( rumbed to inj u ries (rr th . sirme day.

4. Bast d o-r a complaint, police of Bowenpally poli,::e Station, registercrl I ctse in Crime No.93 ol 2Ol2 under Scction 304_A IpC against bo .h tl e driver of Chevrolet car and Lorry.

5. It is stzttr:d by the petitioners that the decea;ed \viis aged 23 years and is an Engineering Graduate and r,,as ri orking in M/s.Cubtc Trzrnsmissions private Limited and usecl to draw monthly s ller-i of Rs.25,000/- and contribute the same for maintenan,:e o;- his family. Apart from this, he trad :rn overseas employmen t o1ler for which he was ready with visa and \,sas about to leave r.r ith.n a short period where he woulC have earned t t W 3 MGPJ I No 1 o{ 2024 in/and Macne No 275 0t 2019 Rs.1,00,OOO/- per month as starting salary' Due to his sudden and untimely death, the petitioners lost their bread winner and were put to mental shock and agony and hence fi1ed ciaim petition seeking compensation against the respondents'

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos' I and 2 remained ex- parte. Respondent No 3/Insurance Company Frled its counter denying the material averments made in the claim petition which includes,mannerofaccident,rashandnegligentdrivingofthe driver of torry bearing No.AP-16-TU-1i6O and contended that the particulars of policy mentioned in the petition were not tallying with the records of Insurance Company and that the driver of Chevrolet car do not hold valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and he was not authorized to drive the said vehicle and the said car is not road worthy to ply and lhe petitioners have foisted a false case against the driver of lorry for unlawful gain for which they are not entitled for any compensation and that respondent Nos.l & 2 falled to comply the statutory demand and the concerned Police also failed to forward relevant documents within30daysfromthedateofinformation,assuch,respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it' I 4 MGEJ t Na t ot 2024 tn/and Macna No 275o12019 7 . Fle;porLdent No.4/ Owner of Chevrolet Car bearir:.g No.Ap-O9- CE-8110 filr:tl his counter denying the material .rvermcnts made in the clairr petition and admitted that he is the owner of the Car and respondent \o.5 is the insurer of the said Car and slated that the . acciden t occ urred only due to the negligence on part ,:tf the driver of the lc rrw who left the lorry on the road u, thout taking any precautic ns like blinking parking lights and inrlicatols. He also contencle I that the car involved in the accident u as ir-rsured with responclc-rt Nro.5 and the policy was in force rLs on the date of accident. 'I'herefore, if any compensation is awirrdecl, respondent No.5 rs I able, for payment of the same and therefore prayed to dismiss I re Ilaim against it.

8. Res pon,lent No.S/Insurance Company liled jts counter denying t re ptlicy issued in favour of respondent No.4 ie respect of crime Ca br:aring No.AP 09-CE-8110. It also conten,:led that as per FIR znd r:hargc sheet, the accident occurrerl only due to the negligent act ,tf the driver of the stationed lorry t,earir-tE; No.Ap- 16- TU 1 160 r.r'h o parked the Lorry on the road with cut taking necessary precautions. As such, respondent llo.3, .*.r,ho issued insuranr;e policy to the subject lorry, is liable to l,ay cornpensation to the pot tiorlers. It further contended that respondent No.4 failed to compl / the statutory demand of forwarding a..l relevant document; uiLhin 30 days from the date of infor.matiotr and that t I i the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to 6 MGPJ 1 No 1 ol m24 ih/and Mana No 275 at 2019 dismiss the same against it.

9. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether P.Naga Chandra Sekhnr @ Chandu died in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driuing of diuer of Lorry Bearing No.AP-16-TU-116O and Cheurolet Car beaing No.AP 09-CE-81 10?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, hora much and from uthom?

3. To what relief

10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWsl and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of respondents I to 4, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced, but Ex.B2-Copy of Insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondent No.3. On behalf of respondent No.S, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 1 1 . Based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-al1owed the claim petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.13,2 1,000/- along with interest @ 9%o per annum from the date of petition tili the date of realization payable by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 6 MGP.J lNo1ol2024tn/aN Mafra No 2750t2019

12. H:ard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, l:arnecl counsel for the appr:llernts and Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned Star.: ding counsel for Respcnrbnt No.5/lnsurance Company. perurred the: record.

13. 'll e <:ontentions of the learned counsel for Appellants are ' that the lczr;-ne d Tribunal erred in considering the ir rcome of the deceaserl @ Rs.l2,OOO/- per month; erred in nct as,z:,rding future prospects to the income of the deceased and err:d in trot awarding amounts utdcr conventional heads and therr:fore requested to allow tl-rr Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

74. F'e' <:ontra, learncd counsel for the rcsponde'nt No.5 contended that the learned Tribunal, after consicering ,he evidence and cio tunrents available on record, awrLrded reasonable compens 1tic, lor which interference of this coufl- is un warranted.

15. No v th,: point that arises for determination is, l + ether the order passed bg the learned. Tnbunal requires intt,rfer,znce of this Court? POINT: 16. T'h s Or>url has perused the en[ire record. Since there is no dispute a lor,ll the manner ol accident and liability of r espondents and since th,: findings arrived at by the Tribunal on th,tse aspects were not:hallenged, there is no necessit5i to agzrin delve into the said aspe:ts The only poin[ that has to be (lealt ] r'ith in the present A;>peal is u.ith regard to quantum of compensatir)n. 7 MGEJ 1No1ol2024dand Macda No 215 0l 2419

17. Learned counsei for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.25,000/- per month on the ground that he is an Engineering Graduate and working in private ltrm i'e', M/s'Cubic Transmissions Private Limited, Hyderabad and used to draw income of Rs.25,000/ - Per month' 18- It is pertinent to state that lhough the petitioners contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.25,00O1- per month by working in a private firm and hled Ex.A7-Training Certificate issued by the employer of the deceased to that effect, but the said certificate do not disclose the pay and allowances drawn by the deceased' Further, the petitioners had not examined the person who issued Ex.ATCertilicate.Therefore,thelearnedTribunal'takinginto consideration [he fact that the deceased is a B'Tech Graduate' assessed his monthly income @ |2,OOO I - per month which this Court considers the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same. Since the Tribunal failed to consider awarding luture prospects to the income of the deceased' this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in thecasebetweenNationallnsuranceCo.Ltd.Vs.Prqnqgsethil,is inclined to add 407o towards future prospects to the income of the deceased and hereby calculate compensation as under:- ,77(6) 170 SC I -r:=- 8 MGP,J tNo10lm24tn/and Ma.na tlo275ol2o19

19. As rssessed by the Tribunal, the monthJy income of the deceasecl s Rs.12,000/- . If 4Oo/o is added to the srrid in< ome as the deceasecl s a private employee and is below 40 years of age, then the net n onJ-rly income of the deceased would be Rr;.16,800/-. Since th: lece ased being Bachelor, if SOok is dedlrcted towards his personal )xpenses, then his net monthly incor:re coraes to Rs. B,4OO I - a nd the annual income comes to Rs. 1 0O,80tl/-. After applying rrult;.plier '18' as the deceased being 2li yean; o1d, then the total oss of earnings would come to Rs.18, t4,4Ott/-. Apart from this, the Tribunal awarde d a sum of Rs.2 5.O00 i towards funeral ex len sies of the deceased which this Court find:r the same to be mez.gel and hereby granL a sum of Rs.33,OO0'- towards conventior a1 he ads, for the deceased being Bac -relor, by relying upon the -luclgment of the Hon'ble Apex Corrt rn Na:tional Insurance Co..Ltd. Vs.Prandg Seth?. Hence, tht appcllants are entitled to a toial compensation Rs. 18,47,4O0/-

20. As f,rr a:; liability is concerned, since the a:cidcnt occurred due to the negligence of the driver of crime Lorry b:aring No.AP-16- TU- 1 160 r nd Ex. E}2 - insurance policy issued in respc:t of lorry was in forr e a s on the datc of accident, hence thc learne I Tribunal had rightJl hel,l that respondent Nos.2 & 3, who a:-e the :u.ner and insurer of ,)rime Iorry, are liable to pay compensation. , 2017 (6) i 70 sc I \ I I I o MGPJ I No 1 ol2024 n/and Macda I'lo 2/5o12019

21. So far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 9"h per annum which this Court finds it co be excess and hereby reduce the same to 7 .5o/o per annum by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersa .

22. It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of the Appeal, the claimants have hled I.A.No.1 of 2024 for amending the claim amount from Rs.25,0O,0OO/- to Rs.4O,00,O00/- and since it is settled law that claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation, this Court deems ht and proper to allow I.A.No.1 of 2024 by amending the claim amount from Rs.25,OO,00O/ - to Rs.40,00,00o/ -.

23. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunai from Rs. 13,21'000/- to Rs. 18,47,400/- and I.A.No.1 ol 2024, filed for amending the claim amount, is allowed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5%o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos.2 & 3 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, srnce appellant No.3 is declared as not entitled for compensation as he is having his own source of income, therefore, appellant Nos.1 & 2 are entitled to withdraw the 3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 10 t Na 1 ot 2Oi4 ti/aftl ld. :na No 275 ol2O19 enhanced c )mDensation as Per lhe apportionmen t mace by the Tribunal. T -rere shail be no order as to costs 24 Penrlitg rliscellaneous petitions' if any' shalt stand closed' //TRUE COPY// Sd/- I. JAYASREE ASSISFAN'T REGISTRAR ,FeCrtoru oFFtcER

1. The lvlotor /\ccrcent Claims Tribunal Cum XXV Addl Chiel Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.(with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate [OPUi.] 3. One CC to Sri N. [t/ohan Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Cop ies To, VH I I {:} , ' {TiYffi .t *lt Yr' * ,l

1.- -'-= _- sl",,1r€ c e:) a) () 01 i\']fl .:i -1 .1t ,! - <. ,t + .:/ ...' ,/ HIGH COUFIT DATED: 2110112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE lA NO: 1 OF 2024 IN/AND MACMA.N o 275 of 2019 ALLOWING THE lA NO: 1 OF 2024 AND PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUAR\ -_-_NIVO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI US APPE AL NO: 27 CELLANEO ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS 50F 2019 MOTOR Between:

1. P. Naga Varalaxmi, Wio P Rama Rao' Aged 48 years' Occ- Household' 2, P. Rama Rao, S/o Veeraiah Aged 53 years' Occ- Labour 3. P. Narsimha Teia, S/o P Rama Rao' Aged 25 years' Occ- Private Service' tlifl I&'iil5::l:,:"ly,.f,i?:f#i?hfi1''ff "1uXt3l3i"Ytr"'11ifl fi ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS "13'"'t?::'' AND 5l1Jprrr, SiodiPet' Meoak District 1 Sved Pasha, S/o Syed Yasni' Aged Major' Occ- Business' R/o H.No'24-131' ' 2. G.Shankar, S/o Mallaiah, Aged major' Occ- Business' Rio H'No 1-20211' Limited ' Represented by its ruho"s,Estate' Adiacent to Jaya

3. The Shriram General -lnsurance company . Adilabad. Divisional Manager, "tr"!"'Jii'"'t"Jli' "lri'#;iil";'iTi;di n"oiv ioit"r Road' Abids' Hvderabad'

4. M. Gopal Krishna, S/o Shobhana Raghavendra, Charv' Aged major' Occ- Business, n/o n No. r - r -3"361Vi''Lii iljg:l.' chikkadpallv''Hvderabad'

5. rhe lclcr Lombard^Generar rns.urance co-.Ltd ' EgHj:lJtirffI''d"#iy?itt33 " oH;;it;;i"J-iio-e-eoz/1' 3'o osman Ptaza' tsa Bank. HYderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section '173 of M V Act against the Order and Decree dated 31.08.2017 in M V O P No 1392 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum XXV Addl. Chief Judge' City Civil Courts' Hyderabad' 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy' ,7 Advocate for tl e a,opellants and Sri N. tvlohan Krishrra Respondent No 5 and none appeared for Respondent \os person or by ArJv ocate. Ad vocate for the . 11o 4 either in This Court doth O rder and Decree as follows '1. That the Motor Accident civir Misceflaneous Appear br: and r-ereby is parfly- allowed 01 enrrancing the compensation awarded ry the Tribunar from Rs.13'21,0i)0/- to Rs 18,47,400^ and r.A.No. 1of 2024,filed fcramending the claim amou nt, is allowed;

2. fhat the e,rhanced compensation shall carry interese @ 71j% per annum from the da.e of petition till the date of realization payable by rerspondent Nos. 2 & 3 jointly and severally within a period of two morths fr.m the date of receipt of a :opy of this order;

3. That upon s uch deposit, since appellant No_ 3 is declared as not entifled for compensati.n as; he is having his own source of incom., thereforei. appelant Nos. I & 2 are ,:nti ed to withdraw the enhanced compensat on as per the apportionnrent r-nade by the Tribunal; and

4. That there srrall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII sEclon oFFtcER 'l' The Motor r,ccident craims Tribunar cum xxv Addr chief Judge, city ASSIS T Sd/- I.. JAYASREE ANT REGISTRAR \ l Civil Courts;, Hydr:rabad.

2. Two CD Cop es To VH HIGH COUIRT DATED: 2110112025 DECREE MACMA.No.275 of 2019 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT C.OSTS /, 3 Ia\