The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in both IMACMA'S :SRI. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l.: None appeared The Cotrrt made the following: JUDGMENT f TIIE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.L27L & 986 OF 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No. L27 L of 20 19 is filed against the award and decree passed in O.P.No.11 11 of 2010 dated

06.07.2012 on the file of the MACT-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge-cum- (FTC)-City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.986 of 2Ol9 is filed against the award and decree passed in O.P.No.11 10 of 2OLO dated O6.O7.2OL2 on the file of the MACT-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge-cum- (F"TC)-City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri T. Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

5. Brief facts of the case a.re that on 27.O3.2O1O at about 0.f.3O P.M., the deceased in M.A.C.M.A.No.l27L of ,l ) IT 2 N8K) MACMA.No.986 & 1271 ol2079 2019, iilong with his relatives including the appellant in M.A.C.IVI.A.No.986 of 2OL9, were proceeding in Auto bearing; No.AP-24X-6345 from V. Kondur Viltage towards Hyderabad. On the *4y, when the said auto reached green Lands Hotel, Masukunta Village, one Eicher Van bearing No.AP- IOV -9962 driven by its driver in a rash and negligerrt m€rnner with high speed, came from opposite direction and dashed the auto in which the deceased was proceecling. As a result of which, the deceased fell down from the auto and the Eicher van ran over him and he died on the rspot and the other inrnates of the auto including the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.986 of 2Ol9 have sustained grievous injuries. The wife and children of the deceased filed Ct.P.No.1111 of 2OLO claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,OOO I -.

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the contents of the clarm-petition, counter filed by respondent No.2 and the orerl and documentar5r evidence adduced before it granted an anrount of Rs.4,O4,OOO/- with interest @ 6% per €rnnum from the date of the petition tifl the date of 3 NBK.I MACMA.N1.96 & 1271of 2079 realization. Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the wife, children and mother of the deceased filed M-A.C.M'A'No' 127 L of 2OL9 '

7. The main contention of the appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.L}TLof2olgisthattheTribunaloughtto havedeductedtl+tt,ofearningstowardshisexpensesof thedeceased'insteadofl/3raasthedependantsarefourin number.ItisfurthercontendedthattheTribunaloughtto have considered the minimum wages of the deceased at Rs.S,OOO/- per month instead of Rs'3'0OO/- per month andtheTribunalawardedinterestat6o/operannu'm instead" of 7 .So/s per annum and thus prayed to allow the appeal. income' oral and documentarlr 8. Considering the ag€, evidence placed on record, this court finds that it is just andreasonabletoconsiderthemonthlyincomeofthe deceased. as Rs.S,OOOl- per month' Therefore' the annual incomeofthedeceasedwouldbeRs'6O'OOO/-(Rs'5'OOOI- x L2 = Rs.60,OOO/- ). Apart from the same' the claimants areentitled.toadditionof4}}/otowardsfutureprospect",l:_ 4 NBK) MACMA.No.986 & 1271of 2079 per the decision of the Hon'ble supreme court. Thus, the claimerrts are entifled to Rs.g4,OOO/_ (Rs.6O,OO Ol_ + 4Oo/o i'e' Rs;'24'o0 o / )' From this L / 4t,- is to be deducted towarils personal expenses of the deceased following s,.rra verrtta'' a' Dethi Transpott cotpor,,tionr as the depenclents are four in number. After deducting L /4tn amount towards his person3t_ *9 lglg__expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the fam,y wourd be Rs'63,c)oo/- per annum and as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex court in o*o,tron,,r rns-,,,rance compang a' Pranag sethi2, As seen from the record, the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of the acciden'!, the Tribunar ought to have adopted the multiplier as '15' as per the decision reported in Sarla Vertnq. a. Delhi l'.ranspott, corporation{7 supra) instead of ,16,. Adoptingl multiplier '15', the totar ross of dependency would be Rs.63 ,OOO / - x 15 : Rs.9,45 ,OOO / _. 9. Be:;ides, the appellants are also entitled lor compensation under tonventional heads, as prescribed in '2009 ACJ 12sr8 (sc) '2077 (76l, SC(l 680 5 NBK,I MACMA.No.986 & 127 1 oI 2019 the dictum of rMattonal lttsurance Compang Limited, a. Pranag Sethi (2 supra), i.e. Rs.18,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.18,0OO/- towards funeral charges. Therefore, they are entitled to Rs'36,000/- under the .conventional heads'. Further, the claimants being the wife, children and mother of the deceased are entitled to Rs.48,OOO/- each towards consortium as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Magma General Insurqnce Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Rann @Chuhnt Ro;ms' Thus, in all' the petitioners are entitled to Rs. Ll,73,OOO l-' M 986 of 2OI9

10. Appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.986 of 2019 is an injured, she claimed a compensation of Rs'1,5O,OOO/- for the injuries sustained by her in the aforesaid accident.

11. The learned Tribunal after considering the contents of the ctaim-petition, counter fiIed by respondent No.2 and the oral and documentar5r evidence adduced before it granted an amount of Rs.1,5O,OOO/- with interest @ 60/o aIt ' (zors) 18 scc 130 6 NBK,] MACMA.No.986 & 7221 of ZO19 per arlnum. Aggrieved by the order and decree of the learnec Tribunar, M.A.c.M.A.No.9g6 of 2org is fired seeking enhancement of the compensation. L2- l,earned counsel for the appeflant contended that injurecl is working as a rabourer and earning Rs.S,ooo/- per m.nth. It is further stated that t].e appellant,s right index finger and rittre finger were amputated and in view of the said amputation she cannot do the rabour work and unable to hold anything with her hand. It is further conten<led that the appeilant is put to ross of rooo/o ross of earning;s but the Tribunar has wrongry consid.ered the disabiliry at r4o/o and granted meager compensation. Learnecl counsel for the appe[ant finarly contended that the appellant is entitred for grant of compensation, particularly future loss of earnings Looo/o by taking into conside::ation of her earnings at Rs.S,o oo /- per month and therefor,e, prayed to enhance the compensation.

13. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the (ribunal passed a welr reasoned order by taking into L consideration alr the aspects and awarded Rs.1,5o,o0o/- 7 NBK.J MAcMA.t/o.g&5 & 1277 of 2019 as claimed by the appellant. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and the appeat is liab1e to be dismissed. L4. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.I27l of 2019 is all0wed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.4,04,0oo l- to Rs.11,73,OOO/- with interest @ 60/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization' Respondent Nos.1 and 2 arejointly and severally liable to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. on such deposit, appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount along with the interest accrued on it. Appellants are also directed. to pay deficit court fee on the enhanced amounts-

15. M.A.C.M.A. No.986 0f 2019 is dismissed. No costs.

16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. sd/. M.JAWAHAR REDDY ,/TRUE GOPY// OFFICER s- To fr"Lf< Court), Citv Cirif Court, Hyderabad' (With.Records if any)

1. The Motor Accident claim Tribunal -cum- Xll Additional, chief Judge (Fast z. one cc to SRr. f VI5wA1Uq4.95nnv, AdVocate tgqqq ^- 3. il; cc i; sRi. A nar'eAkilsi-iuA neooY, Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies G K, H N D c J D URT 10t07t2025 STA ,t 1?rtsM * * t:' UDGMENT MACMA.No.1271 AND F,/86 0F:2 19 l ALLOWING THE MACMA.Nc.1271OF 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA.NO 986 0F 2019. t, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I!!]EqDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY rwo rHousANo eruo irffeNii irVe PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 2019 1 M.A.C.M.A.NO: 127i OF 20i9 3ffl,:f,"Somakka @ ye,amm a, Wto. Late Somaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ: Between: , 2' chintha somanarasaiah, S/o. Late somaiah, Aged 20 years, occ: student, 3' Chintha shankar, s/o. Late somaiah Aged 16 years, occ: student, 4. P-"OOq yettamma, Wo. Late Ran g,f*lir["]'l,o;i,iJ,,if, L=,,ffi ,T,i[;X%:fl ,"lo,f,i#,",.,f "n#:il]inill: fl'#:".y# tJf[il3ffrY'Xase, Mothku r Mandat, Natsonda. Havi ns temporariry AND ...APPELLANTS/PETITIoNER

1. Tasleem Banu, D/o. Mohd. Aziz, Agg. Major, Occ: pusiness-,_R/o. 1€-393, Musheerabao, Hvoeiaoao. (o*ril ortiin"l-%n"tlari ns No. Ap i o'v'ssozy. 2' The Reriance Generar tnsurance co. Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager, 4_1_32r !o^^ .13-z_, tV--Ftooi,' S"G;"' pt;;;-' n"dro".l,."H l*o4ze2s4goozors Inov?yii' rromJ,_bs_2bb;i" jy_EB:iB?8. (poricv No. Between: ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS S I Chinta Chandramr., y.o. parashuramulu, g';J'3#fr ,!::3ifl :i"#Xffi l,t.?"?:ilppard |g"d.about 35 years, Occ: Labour. Mandat, Waranlal Ciistrd -ffi"i; ...APPELLANT/PETITION ER AND

1. Tasleem Banu, D/o. Mohd. Aziz, Age Major, occ: Business, R/o. 1-6-3g3, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (owner of Eicher van bearing No.Ap 10 v 9962).

2. The Reliance General lnsurance co. Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager, 4-1-327 to 337, lV Floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad. (policy No. 18')4792349002615 and Valid from 17-09-2009 to 16-09-2010) ...RESPONDENTS/RES PON DENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against order and Decree rrade in M.V.o.P.No. 1111 of 2010 and MVop 1110 oF 2010 dated OOlOll2O12. on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal -Cum- Xll Additional, chief Judge (Fast Track court), city civil court, Hyderabad. Th s 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 argument of sRl. T vlswARUpA cHARy, Advocate for the Appellants and of SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 None appeared for the Respondent No.1 in both MACMA's This Gourrt doth Order and Decree as foilows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.986 of 2019 be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal M.A.C.M.A.No. 1271 of 2019 be and is hereby allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.4,04,000 to Rs.1 1,73,000/-;

3. Th:rt the Respondent No.1 and 2 be and hereby are jointly and severally liable to <leposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of rec,eipt of this judgment;

4. Thzrt on such deposit, the appellants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the said amount along with the interest accrued on it;

5. Thert the Appellants be and hereby are directed to pay deficit court fee on the enhanced amounts;

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stiands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To 1 . The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal -Cum- Xll Additional, Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT NBK, .l DATED: 1010712025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.1271 AND 986 0F 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA.NO.1271OF 2019 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA.NO.986 OF 2019. \ "1,