Lcarned counsel for the v. Prana.g Sethi o.nd. otherst. particlrlarl-y

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. T Viswarupa Chary Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 :Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy The Court delivered the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDI) ' M.A.C.M.A.No.39 of 2Ol9 J_UDGI4ENT: I This appcal, undcr Scctior.r 173 of the Motor Vehic r ; Act, 1988, is fited by the zr ppellants-claimants, challenging the j.r lgmr:nt ancl decree dated 29.06.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 1136,r1 1013 by thc Chairman, Motor Accid(.nts Clerims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Acr ilional Chiel Judge (Fast TraCk Court), Citl,Civil Court, Hyderabad (i r short "thc Tribunal"), u,hercby thc Tribunal arvarded a total c()rr rensation of Rs.6,95,400/- along with inrerest at 67o per annum fron the date of petition, as aElarnst thc (laim of Rs.15,00,000/- for ttrr leath of thc dcceased B, Rulrr ir.r a road acci(lcnt.

2. The brief facts of thc case are that on Q4.O2-2O1.) t le dcceased, along with two others, was travelLng on a Bajaj Pulsa 'motorcycle bcaring No.AP 09 AU-4t365 and when they r( i :he<L near Kondamadugu Village, Bibi Nagar, on N.H-163, onc anker lorry bearing No.AP-3 I U 6758. beinq drivt:n bv its driver i.r a rash and negligent mann(.r and:rr high speed, dashed the motor ).cle, due to which thc dcceirscd fell dowr-r and sustained grievous t- :ad injurir:s. Ile r,vas shiftecl to Govcr trmenr i\rea Hospital and thercl ter 1o Nikhil Hospital, Dilsrr khr.ragar, H-vdcrabad and on 1() (

2.20t3, he succumbed to injurics n,hile utrdergoing treatment. A ] se in Crirne 2 - No.18 of 2013 was registered under Section 304-4 IpC against the driver of the tanker. Stating that the deceased used to earn Rs.9,OOO/- per month and was contributing t.o the tamily, the appellants filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 15,0O,0O0/- against the respondent Nos. I and 2.

3. Before thc Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the tanker remarncd ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurer filed a countcr denying the avcrments of the claim petition and contended that the coftrpensation claimed was excessive and prayed for dismissal of thc claim.

4. Aftcr consrdering the oral and documentary evidence on rccord, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the dnvcr of the tanker and awarded compensation of Rs.6,95,400/ with interest at 60/0 per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the quantum of cornpensation arvardcd, the appellants filed the present appeal seekrng enhancement

5. Lcarned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Trrbunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,50O/- per month and in not properly applSnng the principles laid down by 1 the Hontrle Apex (lourt in Nationo.l Insurance Company I inited" vs. Prana.g Sethi o.nd. otherst. particlrlarl-y with regard to c( r rpensation under conventional heads. Learncd courrsel also submittc(I hat as per the decision o[ the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Notlona irtsurance Company Ltd.. us- Ma.nnat Johal and others2, the reasor rblc rate o[ interest to be awarded in motor accidcnt claim cases shall I e 7.Sok pet' annum and thcrefore prayed this Courl to modify the im1;rr ned award and enhance the (:ompcnsatlon.

6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel ar rearrng for respondent No 2-insurancc company supported the awarr passed by the Tribunal and conlended that the c()mpensation grant( ( is just and reasonable and does not warrant interlerence.

7. The finding ol the Tribunal that the accident occ r red due to thc rash and neglrgerlt driving ol th. drit,er of the ta1)( r and that respondent No.2 insuranc.- companv is liable to pa1, 11 npensation has become finai, as the same is not challenged by the rellt ondr:nts.

8. Insofar as the incomc of ttrc deccased is conccrne-l though no documentary cvidence has been produced, taking into : nsicLeration the nature of u,ork and circumstances o[ rhe case, this Cr trt is of the opinion that the monthly income of lhe dcceased can I,r reasonably | 2017 ACJ 2700 , AIR 2019 SC 2079 .- --l-f] 4 fixed at Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.4,500/- (taken by the Tribunal). Thercfore, annual income of thc deceased cornes to Rs.72,000/- (Rs-6,O00 x l2). As pcr the dccision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranag Sethi's case (supra), 407' has to be added towards future prospccts, whictr cornes to Rs.28,800/-. Thus, the total annual income comcs to Rs.1,00,800/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50o/o has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceascd, which comes to Rs.50,4OO/-. Applying the multiplier '18', as the deceased was aged about 24 years, the total loss o[ dependency comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.5O,400 x 18).

9. As regards compensation under conventional heads is concerned, the t{on'blc Apex Court in Pranag Sethi's case (supra) hetd that reasonable figr-rres under conventional hcads such as loss ol estate, Ioss o[ consortium, and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,0OO/-, Rs.4O,00O/ and Rs.15,000/- respcctively and that thc aforesaid amoLrnts sl.rould be enhanced at the ratc of 107o every three years. Taking into consideration the said decision, this Court is rnclined to grant an arnount of Rs.84,O00/- under the conventional heads. Thus, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs-9,91,2OOl- (Rs.9,07,200/- + Rs.84,00O/-). lO. Coming to the ratc of interest, as the Honlcle Supreme Court in Manno.t Johcl's case (supra) and in several subsequent decisions 5 held that thr: reasonable rate of interest to be au,ar(Lr I in mot()r accident claim cascs shall be Z.5o1, per annurn, this C(r rt is of thc oplnion that the ralc of rnterest alvarded by the Tr rI-.r ral, in thc instant case, requires modjfication.

11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed ancl rl.r impugned award passed by tl.re Tribunal is modificd bv r:Dlr ncing thr: compensation from Rs.6,95,4oo/_ to Rs.9,9l, 2oo/_ rt,il interest at 7 -svo per annrrm from the date of petition ti the date rr earization The rest of thc terms and .onditions imposed by thr: 1.r I unal shall rcmain unalterecl. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the rniscellaneous petitiorrs pending stand closed f i ny. shall //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. J \WAHAR REDDY ASSISI qNT REGISTRAR ,,2 CTION OFFICER To,

2. 1 The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_curr _ Xil Addirionat Chief Judge, City Civit Courts, HyderabaO. (Witn reco"rl.; :T:9 ro:ri Viswarupa cnary, noroJrru io"rJ," ff # t;# Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocare to'pl ( l ,T

3. 4. KVR,TD L I i I I I i i I I I I HIGH COURT DATEO:2711112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.39 of 2019 i t' li(lt \\ 6 fIB 2l]26 ( ) r, :-a: PARTLY ALLOWED 13\>\*' [ 3296 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 39 OF 2019 Between: 1- B Bagyamma, Wo B.Venkatanarsaiah, Age 41 years, occ Househoid, 2. B.Venkatnarsaiah, S/o late B.Venkataiah, Age 45 years, occ Nill, 3. B.Ashwini, D/o B.Venkatnarsaiah, Age '19 years, occ Student, AII are R/o H.No.2-189, Ramavaram village, Vardannapet Mandal, Warangal Dist. ...Appellants AND

1. B.Laxminarayana, S/o. Mallaiah, Age Major, occ Business, Rt/o 6-5, Dasireddigudem, Redlarepaka village, Valigonda Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. 2. The Shriram General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep.by its Branch Manager, 3-6- 478, lll Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act. against Order and Decree dated Dt. 29-06-2018 passed in O.P.No.1136 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Chairman [/'lotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Xlll Additional 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 Lower Court and the malerial papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri. T Viswarupa Chary, Advocate for the Appellant and None appeared for Respondent No 1 and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: That the Motor Accident Civil. Miscellaneous Appeal be ar I is par y allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 6,95,400/_ to Rs 9,91,20bl- with interest at 7.5lo per annum from the date of petition till th€ date of realization; That the rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the - .ibunar sharr remain unaltered; That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall st, nds conflrmed in all other respects; and That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeat. 2 4 //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. ,AWAHAR REDDY ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR l3- L'/ I ECTION OFFICER To, l The Chairman Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-c, n- x, Additionar ^ Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies KVR,/DL ?AA, !- HIGH COURT DATED:2711112O25 DECREE MACMA.No.39 of 20'19 PARTLY ALLOWED P,.,t-( \3\d)-[