The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed b1, thc appellants/clai I ants/ petitioners under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award ancl r ecree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cr-r e-VII Aclditional District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as -he Tribunal,) in O.P.No. i68 of 20O4, dated 08.06.2004, seeking corr-r ,ensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of the death of Gali Rajaiah (trt: einafter referred to as "deceased") in an accident that occurred on 19.1C. 1003. 2

For convenience, the parties u,ill be hereinafter r,: erred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of thc case are that appellants/c laimants earlier filed O.P.No.168 of 2004 under Section 166 (l) (c) of r1 , M.V.Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death ol the deceased, vho died in the accident alleged to hai,e caused due to rash and neglig: .rt driving of the driver of the Tractor. It is contended that on 19.10.20[ 3, the deceased went to Mankammathota rvhen he reached o1d emlt. t Tractor & Trailor bearing No.Ap-15-V-593S/5936, car yment office, a re in rash and 4 414"1 LAm,q-tO.l3 z ol292a negligent manner with high speed being driven by its driver rost control over it and dashed deceased scooter from back side. As a result, the deceased fell dou'n and sustained severe injuries arl over the body. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Karimnagar and where he succumbed to injuries. The Police, have registered a case vide crime No. I 16 or 2003 against driver of the oflending vehicle. The appellants / claimants claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal, r.vas that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 56 years and was a permanent Government Em ployee working as Line lnspector in A.P.N.D.P.c. Limited under the control of Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation Tow,n I[, Karimnagar and was drawing a sa1ary of Rs. 18,539.65 per month. The deceased used to contribute the entire income for the weifare of the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the family of the petitioners lost hnancial support and their dependency. 5 I\I?\R.J MACMA.No 137 of 2O2O

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No. 1-f ,: iver of Tractor & Trailor and respondent No.2 - Ou,ner of the Tractc : & Trailor hled common counter affidavit denying all the averments 1 ade in the claim petition and contended that respondent No.1 was drir ng the offending vehicle very cautiously following all the road rules and hat the deceased suddenly applied brakes to his scooter on seeini, another vehicle crossing the road and lost his balance over the scoc I :r arld fell down and on w,hich respondent No. I suddenly applied brerlr 's to prevent the accident and stopped the offending vchicle verv nea - to the deceased and the Tractor in that process touched the scoot rr and the said accident occurred due to self negligence of decr:zLr ed ald further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitat t and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent No.3 - Insur: I the other hand, while making a general denial of thr, ce Company on averment of the petition and prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the claim pr trtion.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments mac e by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the foilor.r,ing iss res which reads as under: " l . Whether the occident had ocaured due to rash ancl neLlitr uehicle No.AP-iS V-5935/ 5936 bg its diuer. ent diuinq of the 6 Ar &.J MACMA.lto.l37 of 2O2O

2. wTl.ther fite uehicre ln question has got uatid insurance on the date of occident.

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation if so, to uhat amount and from tuhom.

4. To u.that relief.?" . 7 . To substantiate the petitioners' case, PWs. 1 to 3 were examineci and marked Exs.Al to A8. None examined on behalf of the respondents, hor,r,ever trx.81-copy of the insurance policy was marked. B. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to an conclusion that the claimants was entitled for the compensation of Rs.7,28,200/- but the claimants having claimed only Rs.4,00,OOOl-, the award amount was restricted to Rs. 4,0O,000/- along with interest @ 9o/o per annum.

9. Being unsatisfied and aggrievecl by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is fi1ed on the following among other grounds, that the deceased was aged about 56 years as on the date of accident and the Tribunal has taken the net income of the deceased instead of Gross income of the deceased and further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that it is settled law that gross income of salaried employee, before deduction of GPF, LIC etc., should form basis for computation of the monthly income of )Y-- 7 MACMA, No. I IVNR.J 7 of 2O2O the deceased and the learned Tribunal has not awar 1ed just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

10. Learned counsel lor the appellants/claimants r; Lbmits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustri red and death of the deceased. In cross examination, PW 1 to PWI] were examined. Exhibits A. 1 to A.B were marked on behalf of petrt oncrs. [n cross Examination. PW2, who is the eye witness deposed tr, lore the 'lribunal narrated the said accident and submits the deceasc, was going on a Chetak Scooter proceeding towards their office ahea<l of him and when they reached old Employment Ofhce Chowrasta, Karimnagar, the offending crime vehicle i. e. , Tractor & Trailor be I 5935/ 5936 driven by respondent No. I came in a r r 'ing No.AP-15-V- sh and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the decer ;ed from his back side, as a result deceased feli down and sustained atal injuries and succumbed to injuries. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent chi .ing of offending Tractor, but without considering the evidence in pr r per manner with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribr r a1 has taken the net income as Rs.10,988/-per month instead of yoss salary i.e., B IVNR.J MACMA.Ib.137 of 2O2O Rs.18,540/- as per Ex.A7-sa1ary certificate issued by Divisiona_l trlectrical Engineer, Karim nagar.

11. . Learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners further contended that the leamed rribunal has come an conclusion that the petitioners would be entitled for the compensation of Rs.7,2g ,2OO/_, however the petitioners have filed claim petition for Rs.4,0O,OO0/- and the award amount was restricted to Rs.4,00,000/ which is bad in law and he draws attention of this court to judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court in Nagappa Vs. Guntdagal &, Orsl wherein it was held that Courts/Tribunal shall ai.vard just and farr compensation, if the ciaimants are entitled to, even if the awarded amounts are beyond the claimed amount in the petition and also not awarded just compensation under the various head as per as per the judgment of Hon,ble Apex Court in Nationo.l Insurance Compang.Limited Vs. pranag Sethi and others2. 1,2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after considering the entire evidence avaiiable on record, the learned Tribunal A 1 Qoo3) 2 SCC 2741 '2017 ACJ 2700 9 !/flR.J MACMA-No. 137 of 2O2O has awarded just compensation, which needs no nterference and further submitted that the claimants filed cle.; -n petition for compensation for Rs.4,00,000/- and the Tribunal : ls awarded full compensation i.e., Rs.4,00,00/- and now the claimar ts cannot asked for enhalcement compensation.

13. None appear for respondent No.1 & 2. 14 . Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned co ,: I se I appellants / petitioners and Ms. P.Satgo Manjula, IeiL ned counsel lor the respondent No.3 The Oriental Insurance Cc rpany Limited. Perused the material on record. i 5. Admittedly, the respondents have not hled cror; -appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, th.re is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the decea; :d and accident. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is hat: i) Whether the Tibunal has ightly considered the claim 1,t granted just and fair compensatton to the petitioners. lition ancl ti) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhonced cort if so, to rtthat extent.? )ens1tion, 10 t hlR.J MACMA.It,@- 137 of 2O2O Point No.1 & 2:

16. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on

19.1O.2013, aileged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the Tractor driver. Ex.A7 shows that deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.18,540 l- and net salary of Rs.10,9BB/-, however the learned Tribunal has taken the net salary of the deceased as notional income of the deceased ald calculated the compensation award. There is no dispute with regard to the avocation and income of the deceased and there is no dispute with regard to the age, nature of accident. The only question raised before this Court, whether to take net sa1ary or gross salary of the deceased for computing the notional income. In this regard, it is necessary to iook into law iaid dou'n by Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases.

17. In Yerrammd a. G.Krishna Murthgl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Gross salary ought to have been taken after deducting 107o towards income tax and the relevant paragraph No.14 & 15 which reads as below for easy reference: A 3 lzor+; scc os -,rr&&rA&,&tttt; / 11 rv]\lR,J MACMA.tto.l37 of 2O2O

14. The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of the dec month of April, 2O1l determined the salary of the Rs.2 1 , 168/ per month after deducting tou_tards P ', stotutory d.educttons. Therefore, the TibunaL arnued ct per month as the salary of the deceased. The HiLllt impugned judgment and. order affirmed the same. \\ uietu, that on the facts and circumstances of this case, t of the deceased taken bg the Tibunal and the Hi, determination o/ loss of dependencg is enoneous as accorclance utith the principles laid doran bg this t regard. Therefore the same is lioble to be set aside o. properlg determined by taking gross income of the de cleor that the gross income of the deceased at the timz us per his salary slip tuas Rs.26,0O0/ - per month. T'he, of the uieut that o just and reasonable compensation u t of loss of dependenca has not been determined bg the L 'l'hus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Ct t both on account of erroneous f.nding and error in lat salary draun bg th.e deceased ot the time of h.i.; Rs.26,OOO/- per month. The High Court and the Tribun: the net salary at Rs.21,168/- per month, thereby the t haue erred in making deductions from the gross j;( deceased towards P.7'. of Rs.200/- and other stotuto,-, and therefore, arriuing at Rs.21,168/- per month as ttLe the cleceased is erroneous in lou. Therefore, tue ore of t both the 'l'rtbunal and the High Court haue erred. in not, rules ktid doutn by this Court in Ind_ira Sriuostauo's i: nsed for the Teceased at . and otlter Rs.2 I , 168/ Courl in its z ore of the te net salary 'h Court for it is nol irt ourt in tllis it has to be :eased. It is of his cleath l'ore, ute are ler the heacl curls below. rl is uitiated '. The gross death utcts ' houe takc:rL 'ourls beLout Lary of the deductions rct salary of rc uieu.t that tllouting the tpra) in not t2 JlInlR.J MACMA.No. 137 of 2020 taking gross income of the deceased to determtne the loss o/ dependency 15 The gross salory drown bg the deceased at the time of his death as per salary sLip produced on record was Rs.26,OOO/ per month. and after deducting 1Oo,4 tou.tards income tax, net income comes to Rs.23,400/- per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased u.tould be Rs.2,80,8O0/-. Deducting 1/4th of this amount toutards his personal expenses by applying the principle as laid dowrt by this Court in. Sarla Vermct case (supra), lhe baktnce amoutTt cottles to Rs.2, 1 O,600/ -[(2,80,800/ - - Rs.7o,2oo/ - ( 1 / ath ol Rs.2,80,800/ -)]. Therefore, the Loss of dependency of the appellants by appLyirtg the appropriate multiplier of 11, according to the nies laid doturt bg this Court in the Sarla Verma comes to Rs.23,16,60O/ - (Rs.2,10,600/ - X 11)',

18. In view of judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yerramma u. G.Krishna Murthg (cited supra), this Court is inclined to enhalce the monthly income of the deceased granted by the Tribunal from Rs.7,325/- to Rs.16,686/- (Rs.18,5a0l- tOokl per month.

19. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranag Sethi and others (cited aboue) and considering the age of the deceased as 55 years as on the date of the accident, additional 15'k of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthll, income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased 13 IV]VR.J MACMA.N?.137 o:L2929 \ rould come to Rs. 19,189/- (Rs.16,686/- The annual income of the deceased would come t r Rs.2,30,268/ Rs.2,503/-). (Rs. 19, I89 I - X l2) and, out of which, 1/3 has to be ,l :ducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as there was fo - - dependants on the deceased as claimed by the petitioners at the tim: of the accident. Then the actual annual income would come 1( Rs. 1,53,5121- (Rs.2,30,268 l' ( ) Rs.76,7s61 l.

20. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in tht judgment of the Apex Court in Sartc Verma u. Delhi T!,ansport C,t'poration4, and considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '1 I'. 'l'11 rs, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 16,88,632/- (1,53,5f 1l - x 11). 2I. The appellants /claimants are further entitled to Rs. I8,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10('/c, + i0%) tou,ards loss of estat(' i nd Rs.18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + loo,ir + 10%) towards funeral expensei as per Pranag Sethi's Jud.gment (cited supra).

22. The appellant No.1 being the spouse of the deceas :d, the appellant No. I is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48, lO0/ - ur-rder the ' 2oo9 ACI 1298 (sc) I4 rVr\R.J 37o 2020 head of '1oss of spousal consortium', as per Magma Genero,l Insurance Compang Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhnt Rams.

23. Appellant Nos.2 & 3 being the children of the deceased, the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of 'loss of parental consortium' as per Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

24. Appellant No.4 being the mother of the deceased, thc appellant No.4 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rq4B,4O0/ under the head of 'loss of lrlial consortium' as per Magma's Jud.gment (cited supra)

25. On overall re appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the la.,i, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are cntitled to enhalcement of compensation as modihed and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference

26. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: s 2018 (18) scc 1jo 15 t44,1 @c!!4,&,!.92-eI-2929 i) Annual Income (of thc deceascd) Rs.16,686/ X12 = Rs.2,OO,232l- Total Annual lncome = Annua] Income + FuLure Prospects (Annual Income X 15%) = Rs.2,OO,232l + Rs.30,035/- = Rs.23O267 l- l i iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - I /3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.23O267 l. (-) Rs.76.75b i Rs.1,53,51 I /- v) Total Dependencl, = Annual Dependency x Applied Muitiplier = Rs. 1,53,51 1- x l l Claimants' entitlement towards convent.ional heads = Loss o[ Estate + Funeral Expenscs + Ioss of spousal consortium + Parental Consortium + loss of filal consortium = Rs.18,150/ + Rs.18,150/ + Rs.48,400/- + Rs. 96.800/- r Rs.48.400 To tal F.:16,88,621/- I s.2,29,9OO/- I I I I F'.: 19,18,521t-

27. Learned counsel for the lnsurance Company aril red that Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,00O/- against the claim petitio:r of Rs.4,00,000/- and nou' the claimants cannot ask for enhancement ( lmpens€rtion and further argued that granting of compensation m(,1 3 than claimant clarmed is illegal. In this regard, it is relevant to cite authority ln Nagappa Vs. Guradagal Singh ond others6 wher rin at paragraph 6 ZOOZ n1B; Supreme 497 16 ]VNR.J MACMA.No.137 oJ 2020 No.7, with respect to the provision of M.V.Act, the Hon'bie Supreme Court has observed that ". .there is no restriction that compensation could be auarded onlA up to the amount claimed bg the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the euidence brought on record if Tribunal/ court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal maA pass such auard. Onlg embargo is that it should be 'Just' compensation, that is to saA, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustiJlable from the euidence. This would be clectr bg reference to the releuant prouisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 prouides that an application for compensation aising out of an accident inuoluing the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor uehicles, or damages to ang property of a third partg so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person uho has sustained the injury; or (b) bg the ou,ner of the propertg; or (c) tahere death hc-s resulted from the accident, bg all or ang of the legal representatiues of the deceased; or (d) bg ang agent duly authorised bg the person injured or all or ang of the legal representatiues of the decea.sed, as the case mag be."

28. In the light of the above judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudagal Singh's case (cited aboue), tlne 7 t7 MACMA,I,to.137 It \R.J of 2020 Tribunals/Courts have the authority to award the cc mpensation more than the amount clarmed by the claimants.

29. By'considering the obserwation of Hon'ble Apex ( rourt in Nagappa Vs.Guntdagal Singhz, the compensation can be a', arded more than the claimed amount". Therefore, the petitioners/apg ellants / claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of f I .19,18,52L / - S against the awarded amount of Rs.4,00,00O / - by the r arned Tribunal.

30. Considering the circumstances of the case, th: learned Tribunal has rightll. awarded the rate of interest at 9 uk per anr urm and the same I I needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Cour. is of the opinion that the petitioners / claim ants are cntitled to intere ; @ 7 .5 7o on the enhanced amount 3 i. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allorved, enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,O0,000/- to Rs.19,18,521 I with interest at the rate @ 7,5 "/" p.a. on the enhanced amount from t re date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are dire: -ed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after gi ,ing due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a peric< of three months ' zooz 121 scc zt+ 18 Iirgic MAe44,M,t37 oI 29?Q from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the Dehcit court Fee on the enhanced amount within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

32. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SdI. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,1 l,/ SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Sri Justice NARSTNG RAO NANDIKONDA (For His Lordship's kind perusal) To, 'l . The chairman, fvlotor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Ka rim naga r. (with records)

2. 'l'1 LR Copies 3. Th-e Under s-ec1ejary, Union of rndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company Affa irs, New Delhi

4. The secretary, Telangana High court Advocate's Association Library, High - Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. '

5. One CC to Sri Y. Ashok Raj Advocate tOpUCI 6. One CC to Ms. P. Satya Manjula, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies !n- .-5i-- F c ) I A ; a ,(: ( ? lr li8 ?n26 HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 2910812025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.137 ot 2020 ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT GOSTS (A- ll Yv IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENW NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 137 OF 2020 Between:

1. Gali Ramadevi, W/o Late Rajaiah, aged about 47 years, Occ Housewife

2. Gali Abinay Kumar, S/o Late Rajaiah, aged 23 years, Occ: Student (B.Tech.ll year)

3. Gali Archana, D/o late Rajaiah, aged'.21 years, Occ: Student

4. Gali Laxminarsamma, Wo Narayana, aged: 82 years, Occ: Household (All are R:/o Qr.No. LIG 71 , Prasanthnagar Colony, Karimnagar) APPELLANTS AND

1. Ettaveni Bhadraiah, S/o Gattaiah, Aged: 37 years, Occ: Driver of Tractor & Trailor No. AP-15 V-5935/5936 Rl/o Bommakal Village, Saidapur Mandal, now residing at H.No. 9-4-1 33/4-,4, Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar.

2. S.Sriramulu, S/o Bheemaiah, aged: Major, Occ: Business, Owner of Tractor & Trailer No. AP. 15-V-5933/5396, R/o Elgandal Village of Karimnagar Mandal and district.

3. The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited Represented by its Branch lvlanager, Opp: Collectorate Complex, Karimnagar. RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 't 73 of M.V.Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 08-06-2004 in fi/.V.O.P.No. 168 of 2OO4 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 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 Y. Ashok Raj, Advocate for the appellants and Ms. P. Satya Manjula, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3 and none appeared for Respondent Nos. 'l and 2 either in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the IVACI\/A be and hereby is allowed enhancing flr Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 19,18,52'1i- with interest at the rate r enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date o 2. That insofar as the compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,l Tribunal is concerned, the same shall carry interest at tfrr date of petition till realization,

3. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to dec i.e., 19,18,5211- together with costs and interest after gi\ amount already deposited, if any, within a period of il r date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

4. That the compensation amount shall be appo 1 appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as o-r Tribunal;

5. That the petitioners be and hereby directed to pay the d _, enhanced amount within three months from the date o, this judgment; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. : compensation from @7.5% p.a. on the ealization; )0/- awarded by the rate of 9% from the lsit the said amount ng due credit to the ;e months from the oned among the ered by the learned icit Court fee on the 'eceipt of a copy of //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.H.{i GOWRI SHANKAR ASSIIS TANT REGISTRAR I a-/- IiECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The chairman, lvlotor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-vll r\ lditional District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Two CD Copies ?1[- HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 2910812025 DECREE MACMA.No.137 ot 2020 ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Ir 1\