The High Court · 2025

Dasireddigudem, Redlarepaka village, Valigonda Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. 2. The Shriram General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep.by its Branch l\/anage r, 3-6-47g, lll Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabadl ...Respondents/Petitioners Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. T Viswarupa Chary Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Sri Kalloji Jairaj Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy The Court delivered the following: t:,' :.'. } THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.38 of 2019 Heard Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K.Jairaj, learned counsel for .respondent No' 1 and perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/petitioners, aggrieved by the order, dated 29.06.2018, passed in M'V.O.P.No.7477 of 2013, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby, the subject MVOP frled by the appellalts/petitioners seeking a compensation of Rs. 1 5,O0,000/- was allowed in part by the Tribunal, granting a compensation of Rs.6,95,400/-

3. The claim petition arose following the death of the deceased D.Thirupathi in a road accident which took place on O4.O2.2O13 at

15.30 hours near Kondamadugu, Bibi Nagar, NH No.163, when the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 09 AU 4865 on which the deceased was travelling along with his friends Alender Reddy and Raju was struck by a tanker bearing registration No.AP 31U 6158. The occurrence of the subject accident ald the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The appeal is preferred \ al' 2 alleging that the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable, inasmuch as the Tribunal has not taken Ex.A6-original salary certihcate of the deceased into consideration while computing compensation. As per Ex.A6-salary certihcate, the deceased is shown to be earning Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal has wrongly considered the wages of the deceased at Rs.4,50O/-. Further, the Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects at 50%o instead of 4Oo/", since the deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of his death in the subject accident. On these grounds, the appellants sought enhancement of compensation.

4. A perusal of the record shows that the appellants, though got marked Ex.A6-salary certihcate of the deceased in evidence, but did not examine any witness to prove the contents of Ex.A6. Ex.A6 is a singular document which is not supported by any other documents, such as, appointment letter, attendance register or salary register. Alternatively, there are no details of the bank account showing deposit of salary in the account of the deceased. When there is no oral evidence to support the veracity of the contents of Ex.A6, the same carrnot be taken into consideration. As such, no fault can be found with the Tribunal for taking the wages of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. Further, as per appellants, the deceased was a Supervisor working in M/s.Vijetha Digital for about 6 months prior to the 3 accident, whereas the inquest report marked as Ex.A2 shows that the deceased was working as a Flexi Board worker. The said point is also conflrmed in the charge sheet under Ex.A4. The contents of police record raise doubts about the genuineness of the clatms made by the appellants about the avocation and income of the deceased.

5. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajuati @ Rajjo and others u. United India Insurance Compang Limited and otherst, for taking Ex.A6-salary certihcate into consideration for computing compensation. The said case of the Hon'ble Apex Court is distinguishable, as there is difference between a pay slip and a salary certificate issued by a private person. A pay slip, being an ofhcial document from an employer, carries inherent authenticity regarding salary payments and in contrast, a certifrcate from a private individual may lack the same level of credibility. When a pay slip is presented as evidence, and its authenticity is not in question, it should be accepted as reliable proof of the deceased's income. But in the instant case, the avocation and income of the deceased are in doubt on account of the discrepancy in the pleadings when compared to the contents of police record. Therefore, the cited judgment of the Honble Apex Court having distinguished facts will not apply to the present case. ' zoz:1r1 alr 1sc1 az 1o.e1 4

6. Coming to the aspect of payment of future prospects at SOok, for the victims aged between 20 to 40 years, the future prospects are be taken at 50%, provided they have permanent employment with assured income, such as, a Government employee etc. However, the future prospects are required lo be taken aL 4Oo/o, when the victim is employed in private sector or self employed. In the instant case, the deceased was a Flexi Board worker, whose employment and future prospects are uncertain. Therefore, the Tribunal rightiy took the future prospects of the deceased as 4OVo and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,95,400/-, which is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and requires no interference by this Court. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellants do not merit consideration. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shalt stand closed. To, Sd/- V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER .1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xilt Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court) City Civit Courts, Hyderabad. (With reco rd s) i t 2 J 4 One CC to Sri. T Viswarupa Chary, Advocate [OpUC] One CC to Sri Kalloji Jairaj, Advocare [OpUC] One CC to Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies BGV/D L ft- "-q-: -- , I I gE S rAi'"- T o ) c t$ N$ ? M dt, * €':l HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:2110212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.38 ot 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. i-.sPte'Aa flut* THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE Y. RENUKA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 38 OF 2019 Between: 1- D Devamma, Wo Deva Rao, Age 45 years, occ Household, 2. Deva Rao, S/o. Iate Mallaiah, Age 47 years, occ Nill 3. D.Raju, S/o Deva Rao, Age 25 years, occ Nill All are R/o H.No.6-2311 , Yellampally village, Saidapur [Vlandal, Karinagar Dist. ...Appellants/Petitione rs AND

1. B. Laxminarayana, S/o lvlallaiah, Age l\4ajor, occ Business, R/o 6-5, . Dasireddigucjem, Redlarepaka village, Valigonda Mandal, Nalgonda Dist 2. The Shriram General lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep by its Branch lilanager, 3-6'478' lll Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad Appeal Under SectionlT3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in o. P. No. 1477 0f 2013 dated 29-06 2O 1 8 0n the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court) City Civil ...Res pondents/Petitioners Courts, 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 Sri T Viswarupa Chary, Advocate for the Appellant and of sri Kalloji Jairaj, Advocate for the Respondent No. '1 and of the Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the ttIAClVlA be and hereby is drsmissed --;:w #" /l/. 2- That there shall be no order as to costs at this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/- V. HARI PRASAD T REGISTRAR ASSI TION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, t\4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court) City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. fwo CD Copies BGViDL W HIGH COURT DAIEO:,2110212O25 DECREE MACMA.No.38 of 20'19 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. \-P(")" ft,. \ ( r,.1\3)'}