High Court · 2025

Couirsel for the APPellants: SRI. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No' 1 and 2i None APPeared The Court made the following: Judgment I HONo JUDGMPNT: LES M.A. MT. c .M.A JUSTI CE M.G.P RIYAI)ARSINI ,No.39 0F. 2018 Aggrieved by the order and decree dated ll.OZ.2O77 (hereinafter will be referred as ,impugned ord..er,) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal _ cum - Ii Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be relerred as ,TribunalJ in O.p.No. 159 g of 2014, re appeliants, rvho are the petitioners/claimants before the learned Tribunal, preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under of pullaiah a) The pefitioners, who are the parents (hereinafter will be referred as deceased], filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.1o,o0,0oo/- against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the death of the deceased in the road trafirc accident. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the claim petition 2 deceased Ramesh Babu deceased is that on Og 'O4 '2014 at about 10'30 PM the deceased was returning home on his motorcycle bearrng registration 4863 after taking dinner at Komarole One No.AP 27 AQ and another person were aiso following the on another motorcYcle' When theY reached Edamakallu Vlllage X Road on Komarole to Thaticherla Motu Village road, one car bearing registration No' AP 03 AL 4500 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') came in the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road being driven by itsdriverathighspeedinarashandnegligentmannerwithout following trafltc rules and hit the motorcycle of the deceased while overtaking another vehicle ' As a result' the deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries all over the body' While thedeceasedwasbeingshiftedtothehospital,hesuccumbedto injuries. b) A case in Crime No 34 of 2Ol4 of Komaroie Police Station, Prakasham District was registered for the offence under Section 3O4 - A of the Indian Penal Code' c) The deceased was alleged to have been aged about 20 years and earning Rs 15,OO0/- per month by doing motorcycle mechanic work /1 3 "-""^"-.rg,i d) The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs. 10,o0,ooo/_ fromthe respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above pe tition averments, the respondent No.1 remain ed exparte ancl whereas respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments; such as petition is bad for non joinder anci misjoindcr of necessary parties; the pedtioners filed the petitio.r in colrusion with respondent No. 1 and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners examined pWs 1 and 2 and Exs.Al to ,A4 were marked on their behalf. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, however, Ex.B 1 copy of the rnsurance policy was marked !. I I * I I I I i I I

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impr-rgned order Rs.7,64,000/- AS compensation to the petitioners. by the quantum of compensation awarded by the au.arding Aggrieved 4 learned Tribunal, the petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement ol compensation' 7 . Heard both sides and perused the materiai available on record including the grounds ofAppeal' It is to be seen that the respondent No'2/Insurance 8. Company did not prefer any Appeal to set aside the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the subsistence of trx.81 insurance policy at the time of accident' There is also no dispute with regard to the relationship between tl-re petitioners and the d.eceased' llven there is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident' as the learned Tribunal by relying on the evidence of PW 1 (father of the deceased) and PW2 (eyewitness to the accident) apart from documentary evidence underExs.AltoA4i.e.,certilredcopiesofFlR,chargesheet, postmortem examination report and MVI report' answered the issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver' Therefore' this Court is not inclined to interfere with the {inding of the learned Tribunal so far as manner of the accident is concerned' The Iirst and foremost contention of the learned counsel g. for the petitioners is that the learned Tribunal awarded meager r I I I >- "^""^^".,"IS'ii compensation by not considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. It is the specific version of the petitioners that PWl categorically deposed on oath that the deceased was mechanic and used to earn a sum o1.Rs.15,00O/_ per annum. perusal of the tmpugned order discloses a

10. Admittedly, that except the testimony of pWl, the petitioners have any material to substanliate that the deceased Rs.15,0O0/ per month by working as motorcvcle the absence of any documenhry evidence on not filed was earning mechanic. In deceased claimants, 1n Ramachandrappa behalf of the the Tribunal considered the notional income of the at Rs.4,500/- per month. Even the Honourable Supreme Court v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance fnsurance Company Limitedr considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,5O0/- per month in the absence of any documentarv evidence in suppor, of earning capacity of the deceased. Thus, this court is nol inclined to interfere with the findings of the rearned Tribunal so far as the earning capacit5r of the deceased is concerned. r 201r scc 5 536 t I ' a\ 6 ,.,::.

11. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Tribunai failed to award the transportation charges' damage to clothing and other heads that were claimed by the appeliants' t2 It is to be seen that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim under the above heads' Hence' the claimants are not entitled for any amount under the above heads' deccased

13. The learned Tribunal by considering the age of the as 20 Years as Per Ex.A2 charge sheet hxed the relevant multiplier as '18'in vierv of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarld Vertna o' Delhi Tlattsport Corporation2 ' Since the deceased is a bachelor' the learned Tribunal deducted 5o7o ton'ards his personal and living expenses Further' since the deceased is aged below 40 years and self employed' the learned Tribunal considered future prospects at 5O7o' Thus' the Iearned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs'7'29'0OO/- towards loss of dependency. Apart from this learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs'10,OOO/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2S,OOO/- towards funeral expenses' Thus' in all' the learned 2 2009 ACJ t29a ISC) I i I I I I 7 i"l I Tribunal awarded compensation amount of Rs.7,64,0OO claimants. / - to the

74. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the firm opinion r I-Iat the claimants failed to establish any of the grounds to enhance the compensation as awarded by lhe learned Tribunal. Thus, there are no infirmities or irregularities in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. There are no tenable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal, as such, the present Appeal is <levoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 15 In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petrtrons, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- SRI A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUry REGISTRAR SEC ,18N OFFICER

1. The Chairman, [\/otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad.,(with records, if any)

2. One CC to SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two CD Copies To, a' '.,-:1t ;:,: t 'r, I HIGH COURT DATED: 2StO3t2O2S JUDGMENT MACMA.No.39 of 2O1B 5 /. /5 7/s ./? < DISMISSING THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS 'r\; s-i,{,J'E /: 1r stt rffi i;) .j_r -e- cI .<j :,r,. 'i :': * \:- --. : t t32s3l rN rHE HrGH couRlffl$DrffA?rlilrE oF TELANGANA * r u E s D AY, r H 5 Hf^HX,55+$, 8ft1""5'H*" PRESENT SMT JUSTIC E M.G.PRIYADARSINI THE HONOURABLE CC IDENT ctv MOToRA IL MIS CE LLA NEOU S PPA EAL o:N 39 oF2 018 Between: househord' 1 smt B Ba,a Boiama,,wi:;l.J'[1f[ iSil=ilfl];,occ ',#;",. ffi ffiH yil?xt[L:' H;*laLs:' +[,3r'J::: State "'Appellants/Petitioners ^- I **,* **B:R:l T,1-Wl:$il ftl?ffi : i R331fu 1*o maio r' o cc "8Hft"':1.,SrFgtU=f;.,,tlit*ru=3&rY;nr'ii;r*:Rt'"" .ResPondenG/ ResPondents Chairman, Nlotor Accloer Civil Court HYderabad' ,,..#r*]d,".'""1,lfl fl l""ji*{'T",'ailj:!;{*lli'.timf, n#:l:iltffi This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusinQ the grounds of appeal theiudsmeni".oo""*"^!?j:;.'.-iii;Hfllrg.ef S",Aef J!38-"lpI""T: Respond e nt N o 1 a nd 2' #:,1 J i?'J:i iX,: :ltJ:1",llil'"i i"i;; ;; ;o"uL r- tn " This court doth Order and Decree as follows'

1. That the Motor Accident Civil tt/liscellaneoqs Appeal be and hereby is , ?^i#!:#;s aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stands confirmed, ,. ilri t,.r. u" no order as to costs in this appeal' in all other respects; and / /. .ir' i/' l': To, 1 2 //TRUE COPYII "';.'filfliri?J,S+iiR lff 3 [li,.,tr ?i, 8SLT,.ffi%?:l:.. :f if :"JJ*i:f ::ii,, Add iti o n a, Two CD Copies Chief SECTION OFFICER I I I I I I I J I I i I I I I I i l I I i HIGH COURT DATED: 2S1OZI2O2S DECREE MACMA.No.39 of 2O1B DISMISSING THE MACMA // WIHOUT COSTS /hL? + { )