The High Court · 2026

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitione:' aggrieved by the Award and decree dated23.O2.2006 passec .n O.P.No.211 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tr bunal-Cum-Il Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, (fc: short, "the Tribunal") seeking enhancement of the compens€ [ion. 2

For convenie,ncc. the parties will be here t.after referred to:rs thcv arc arrlrved belore tl-re Tribunal

3. Briel' lacts 01' the case are as follows : On 30.08.2000, the deceased and others were ,r avelling in an Auto bearing No.AP-10-U-390O and when the luto stopped, the deceased was getting down from the auto, th : driver of the auto started the auto in a rash and negligen : manner as a result, the deceased fell down and the auto ran over the deceased. Immediately, the deceased was shift: I to Osmania General Hospital and she was died on 03.l1.2000 while undergoing treatment, The Police registered a cr) ;e against the 2 NNRJ MACMA No.51O of 2020 driver of the offending vehicle. The appellants/ petitioners claimed an arnount of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1- driver of the auto remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, file counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and further contendcd that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the learned counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the deceased died in the accident occuned on 3O- 8-2000 due to rash ad negligent driuing of the dnuer of the outo be aring No. AP- 1 0 -U-3 90 0? it) Whether the petttioners are ent[tled to the compensation? iii) To uLhat relief

6. To prove the petitionels' case, PWs.l & 2 were examined and marked Exs.Al to A8. No oral evidence was adduced on 3 NIYR"J ! ACMA No.s10 of2O2O behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B 1- Driving Licence was marked on behalf of Respondent No.2.

7. After considering the oral and document rry evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded ar amount of Rs.1,5O,OOO/- rvith interest @ 7 .sYo per ar num. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved with the Award < ompensation granted by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner;/appellants, who are the husband and daughter of the decea;ed, filed the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claim z nts submits that there is no dispute with regard to acci: :nt, injuries sustained by the deceased and the death of t re deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners has conten led that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and the petitioner clarimed that the deceased was earning Rs 3000/ per month b1, doing labour r.r'ork The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceaserl died due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. but without considering the evidence in proper manner r.r.i h regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has granted 4 IUBJ MAC MA No.s10 of 2020 compensation of Rs. i,60,000/-, hor,,",ever the same was rounded off to Rs.1,50,000/- in all, therefore, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-The Orienta.l Insurance Company Limited submits that a-fter considering the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

10. Heard both sides and perused the record. 1 1. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal, As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point which would arouse before this Court in this appeal is that i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No. 1:

12. Admittedly, the deceased died due to injuries sustained by her in the accident occurred on 30,08.2000. The petitioners claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,00 O /- per month, \: / 5 NNR.J MACMA No,sIO of 2O2O however, no income certificate has been filed. But looking at the records available and the averrnents ma I : by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is held thr t the deceased was iabourer which is neither disputed nor r.r butted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Henr:, , consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the :ase of Latha Wadhwa us. State of Blhart wherein the Hon' rle Apex Court held that even u.'hen there is no proof of incom: and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated by the lourt and can be assessed considering the ground realities. 1 3. Hence, considering the ground realities a-t I facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view thrr the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.. 00/- per day which even the unskilled or daily labourer can easily earned. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased car be notionally taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. Apart from th decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natlon Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethl and. considering the age of the deceased as 30 yee rt, as per the ll Insurance others2 and rs, additional 1 2001(B) SCC 197 i- 2 2417 AC) 27AA 6 NNR.J MACMA No.s10 of 2020 4Oo/o of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.4,200/- (Rs'3,000/- + Rs.1,2OO/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.5O,4OOI- (Rs.4,2OO l- X 12\ and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are two in number' Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.33,600/- (Rs 50,a00/- o Rs.16,800/-). As per the column No 4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verrna u' Delhi Transpor't Corporatlon3, and considering the age of the deceased as 30 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '17'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,71,20O l- P3'6OO l- x l7\' 14 . The appellants/ claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + lOo/o + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,OOOl- + lTo/o + loo/o\ towards funeral expenses, as per Pranag Sethl's Judgment (cited supra) \ r 2oos ecL r298 (sc) 7 NNRJ ! {CMA No,s10 of 2020

15. Further, considering the appellant No.1 being the husband of deceased, appellant No.1 is entitlec to a sum of Rs.48,'1OO/ - under lhe head of 1oss of spousal cc nsortium' as per Prandu Sethi's Jttdgment (cited supra).

16. Appellant No.2 being daughter of the <1 :ceased, the appellant No.2 is entitled for compensation I r a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of parental consorl.i -tm', as per Magma General Insurance Compang Ltmlted'U s,Nanu Rann alis Chuhnt Rama.

17. In Sarla Verrnd's cdse (clted aboue), the lonble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of Just ,l )mpensation' observed as under "Post compensation is adequate compensation .., hich is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstanc'z ; of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a resLl of the turong, as far os moneA can do so, by applging, t rc uell settled principles relating to auard of comperL:;t tion. It is ttot tntended to be a bonanza, largesse or sc urce of proJit." iB. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings material on record and the law laid down by the Honble Sr"rpr -'me Court in the a-foresaid cited decisions. I am of the opir ion that the o zor a 1ra; scc r:o 8 NNR.J MACMA No.510 of 2020 claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation AS modified and recalculated as above ald given in the table for easy reference

19. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) D nnual Income (of the deceased) s.3,000/-X12 = Rs.36,000/- Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X 400lo) = Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/- = Rs.SO,4OO/- lI ) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.5o,400/- (-) Rs. 16,800/- Rs.33,600/- iu) v) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.33,600- x 17 Claimant6' entitlement towards conventiona.l heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of Spousal Consortium + loss of Parental Consortium Rs.18,150/- + Rs. 18,I50/- + Rs.48,400/- + Rs.48,400/- Total Rs.s,71,2001- Rs. 1 ,3 3, 1 00/- Rs. 7,04, 3 00/-

20. By considering the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa VsGurudagal Singhs, the compensation can be awarded more than the claimed arnount". Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants/ claimants are entitled to the enhanced ' zoo3 1z1scc zll { 9 NNRJ ! {CMA ro'510 of 2O2O compensation of Rs.7,O4r3OO/- as against 1 re awarded amount of Rs.1,5O,0OO l- by the learned Tribunal 21 . Considering the circumstances of the casr: the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interes. at 7 '5 o/o per annum and the same needs no interference t': this Court' Hence, this Court is of petitioners/ clarmants are entitled to interest @' ' 5 % on the the opiniorr that enhanced amounI

22. Hence, the claimants are entitled for .n enhanced compensation of Rs'7,O4,30O/-. Accordingly, th': M'A'C M A is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs' i,50,000/- to Rs.7,O4,3OO/- with interest at the rate @7'5' 6 p'a' on the enhanced amount from the date of petition ti I the date of realization. The respondents are directed to d': losit the said amount together with costs and interest after giv ng due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within e period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of t ris judgment' The compensation amount shall be apportior- r d among the appellants/ cla'imants in the same manner and ri tio as ordered b1' the learnecl Tribunal. However, the petitiont'l s are directed t0 NNR,.,I MACMA No 510 of 202 o to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There sha1l be no order as to costs.

23. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. t SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Sessions J u dge, PUC] //TRUE COPY// To, Ivlahabubnaoar, Telanqana.

1. The Motor Accident Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. District z one ci to SRI T KUIfiAR BABU Advocate [oPUC-] 3. One CC to SRl. BATHULA RAJ KIRAN Advocate [o 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL Yrd HIGH COURT DATED:1 3/06/2025 ..,, JUDGMENT MACMA.No.510 of 2020 H q 0 * .(i 1t?I z- 6) * ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS e ,fa YL- ztil:*s IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3443 ] FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANOIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDE T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 510 OF 2020 Between:

1. Kurva Krishnaiah, S/o K.Jangaiah, aged about 41 years, R/o Gundoor Village Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist.

2. KuNa Nagamani, D/o K.Krishnaiah, aged 12 yearc, Minor, R/o Gundoor Village, Kalwakurthy Mandal; Mahaboobnagar Dist., being rep.by the 1st appellant AND ...APF'ELLANTS / PETITIONERS

1. M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o M.Madhava Reddy, OwnerAuto bearing No.AP1 O-U-3900, Fiio 1 1-1-348/4/4, Seethaphalmandi Stteet, Secunderabad.

2. The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd, rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, No.11'1 , Kare Trade Centre, M.G.Road, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against order and decree dated 23.2.2006 made in O.P.No.211 ol 2001 on the file of the Court of the lvlotor Accident Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, for the following among other. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI T KUMAR BABU, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No.'l and SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the t\,4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be ant hereby allowed.

2. Thal the compensation amount awarded by the Tribt nal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.1 .50,000/- to Rs.7,04,300/- with inte 1 st at the rate @ 7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced amounl from the date of po tion till the date of realizalion.

3. That the respondents are be and hereby directed to leposit the amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit tc the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from ti-e date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4 That the compensation amount be and is hereby sha I b( apportioned among the a ppella nts/cla ima nts in the same manner and rat r as ordered by the learned Tribunal.

5. That the petrtioners are be and hereby directed to pay t re Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within two months from the datr of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal iD/. MOHO. ISMAIL rrrue copvtt To f\h! 11TlPfn*r \\ . iECTION OFFICER ,1 I \\ \ The Motor Accident Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. District afu ! ..ssions Judge, Mahabubnagar, Telangana. 2 Two CD Copies. GE/PSL \k HIGH COURT DATED:13/06/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.510 of 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS r ,.cf,iu) \o --<{^r c \ \\"rk