Co. Ltd v. Ptunag S,ethl antd othersl, if future prospects at

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI A S NARAYANA, ADVOCATE counsel for the Respondent No.2: sMT PERAVALI sATyA MANJULA KUMAR (sc FoR THDC) counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: sRl N VASUDEVA REDDY (sc FoR Rrc) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ...RESPONDENTS i g) THE HON'BLE SMT. JI'STICT RTNUI(A YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.599 of 2OL9 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri A.S.Naraycula, learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant No.2 and Smt. P. Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the entire record

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant No.2 aggrieved by the award passed by the learned XXII Addl. Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad (for short the TribunalJ, in O.P.No.153 of 2OO9, dated 09.10.2013.

3. The claim petition was filed by the appellant along with her husband on account of death of their son Sri P. Anjaneya Sharma in an accident which took place on 27.O7.2OOT . The accident occurred when the deceased was walking by the road side near Vani Nagar and was hit by APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 U 1338 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Anandbagh to Malkajgiri.

4. Upon considering tlle evidence adduced by the claimants, the Triblrnal awarded compensation of Rs.3,3},OOO/- with interest at \

7.5o/o per €rnnum as against the claim of Rs.7,OO,0O0/-. Aggrieved 2 by the same, the appellant sought just compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the monthly income of tJ:e deceased at Rs.3,OOO/- per month when it should have considered the same as Rs.7,500/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has not included future prospects while awarding compensation. 5, Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company would submit that the claimants did not produce any documentaqr evidence in proof of income of the deceased.

6. . A pemsal of the record shows that as per FIR/Ex.A1, the deceased was working as Poojari at Saibaba Temple in Malkajgiri. There is no proof of income of the deceased as a Poojairi. He cannot be considered as a.n unskilled labourer and his income cannot be taken on such pa"rameter. Hence, the notional income of the deceased in the year 2OOT as a Poojari is taken as Rs.S,OOO/- per month. The deceased was a bachelor aged 25 years and therefore, 50% of tlle income is to be deducted towards personal expenses.

7. Considering the monthly income at Rs.S,OOO/-, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in .I\Ictional Insurantce e , 3 Co. Ltd.. Vs. Ptunag S,ethl antd othersl, if future prospects at 4oolo i.e., Rs.2,000/- is added to the monthly income, the net monthly income comes to Rs.7,OOO/- (Rs.S,OOO/- * Rs.2,OOOl-1. From the net annual income of Rs.84,0OO/- (Rs.7,OOO xl2l, if 5Oo/o is deducted towards personal elq)enses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be Rs.42,000/-. If the said amount is multiplied by the appropriate multiptier'18'as was rightly taken by the Tribunal relying on Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the total compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' would be Rs.7,56,00O/- instead of Rs.3,39,OOOl- which was'awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1O,OOO/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses. However, in view of Pranay Sethi's case (2 supraf , the said finding is set aside. This Court is of the considered opinion that claimants are entitled to Rs.33,O0O/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate (Rs.3O,OOO/- + lOo/o enhancement thereon). In addition thereof, claimants who are parents of the deceased bachelor are entitled Rs.44,OOO/- each towards parental consortium. \ '(zorz}.o scc 680 '(zoog)6 s.c.c. 121 \- i I I I i t' ,t ',: ]. i 4

8. In the light of tlre aforesaid discussion, the claimants are entitled to the following amounts under different heads: Head Compensation awarded (1) Loss of dependency Rs.7,56,OOO (2) Funeral expenses and loss of Estate Rs.33,OOO (3) Loss of parental consortium Rs.88,0OO for claimant Nos. l and 2 Totalcompeasationawarded RS.8,77,OOO/-

9. Though the:claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased, oS per tJre cause title, it appears that the claimant No.1/fat}rer of the decealed passed away before filing this appeal. a^r r- rri :i ,,,.,,t' ,,r.1't . : Hence, the "dfi1i"nsation apportioned to claimant No.1 is apportioned to mother of the deceased i.e. Claimant No.2/appellant No.2 who is lone surviving dependant of the deceased.

10. [n the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,39,OOO I - to Rs.8,77 ,OOO l- as hereunder: a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 5 b) The respondent Nos.l and 2 shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/ claimant No.2 is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing tJ:e securit5r. c) The appellant/claimant No.2 shall pay the court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. Misceltaneous Petitions, if an51, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ To, ,,TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR d SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXll Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad

2. One CC to SriA S Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N Vasudeva Reddy(SC FOR RTC), Advocate [OPUCI 4. One CC to Sri Peravali Satya Manjula Kumar (SC FOR THDC), Advocate loPUCl

5. Two CD Copies Yn, ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.599 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS / I .% 134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO TI-IOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTO ACCIDENT C IVIL MISCEL EOUS AP AL NO: 599 OF 2019 Between:

1. P Viswanatha Sarma (Died), S/o Ramakrishna, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Purohit

2. P. Laxmi, Wo Late Viswanatha Sarma, Age 50 years, Occ Household Both are residents of H.No. 1-99, Sai Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad ...APPellant AND

1. R Viiavkumar S/o R. Viswanath, Age: Majnr, Occ: Business' Rl/o H'No 3-7- 256, Weaker Section Colony, Mansurabad, Ranga reddy district. (Owner of the Hire APSRTC Bus bearing no. AP29u1338)

2. The New lndia Assurance Company l-td Rep by its Deputy Manager, Third party motor claims cell, 5-2-17312,2no Floor, Madanmohan Building' R.P. Road, Secunderabad. (Policy no. 61Ol00/31/07/01/0000492 valid from 1S-5-2OO7 to 19-05-2008)

3. The APSRTC Rep by Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC X Road' Hyderabad.

4. The APSRTC Rep by Depot Manager, Ranigunj-ll depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No. 153 of 2009 dated 09-10-2013 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXll Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad. 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 A.S.Narayana, Advocate for the Appellant and Smt. P. Satya Manjula, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, SC for RTC, appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 3'39,000/- to Rs. 8,77,OOOI-.

2. That the compensation amount shall carry interest at7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization'

3. That the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall deposit the amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Judgment.

4. That on such deposit that the Appellants/claimants No.2 be and hereby entitled to withdraw entire amount, without furnishing the security.

5. That the appellant/claimant No.2 shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amount of comPensation.

6. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal shall

7. That there shatl be no order as to costs in this appeal' //TRUE GOPY// SD'. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY BIEGISTRAR /* SECI\Ofl OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXll Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad

2. Two CD CoPies ABK y4, 4 HIGH COURT RY,J DATED: 1310312025 DECREE MACMA.No.599 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA ,r t"fub k#