The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent,No.l : _ Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR The Court made the foilowing: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No .L79 of 2o23 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counscl for the and Sri Kondadi AjaY kumar, learned appeliants/ claimants standing counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/ claimants aggrieved by the order passed by the learncd Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (lll Additional District judgc) at Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.P.No 899 of 2C08, dateo 27 'O7 2075' wherein, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 6,30'6O0/- as against the claimed amount of Rs 8,OO,OOO/- on account of death of one K.Kalavathi in a road trafhc accident'

3. On ll.l2.2OO7 at 1O.O0 am, the deceased was standing by the side of the road talking with one Rapelly Srinivas infront of Kirana Shop at Keshapoor Village, a tractot bearing No'AP- 25-TR-AY-4C9 driven , by it driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Grampanchayath siite and lost his control overthetractoranddashedthedeceasedwholt'asstandingby the side of the road, ciue to which deceased fell dou n and the tractor ran over the deceased and the tractor went and hit to a t 2 compound wall. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple fractures and died on thc spot. Consequently, the claimant Nos. 1 who is husband and the claimant Nos.2 and 3 who are children of the deceascd have hled claim petition seeking compensation jointly and severally from the respondent No. 1- owner of crime vehicle, respondent No.2_insurer of the crime vehicle.

4. The claimant No. I got himsclf examined as pW1 and an eye witness was examined as pW2 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A5. In response, on behalf of respondents, R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and exhibited Ex.Bl to 89 and Exs.Xl and X2.

5. On the basis of cvidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,3O,60O/- with interest at 6oh per annum and the same is subject matter of the present appeal.

6. In grounds of appeal, the claimants contended that the income of the deccased was Rs. I5,OOO/ to Rs.3O,O00/- per month by doing agriculturc and rearing buffaloes and she was also looking after the affairs of the house. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,00O/- per month and considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,O0O/_ per month on the basis of Lata Wadhun and others a. State of Bihar 3 dnd othersl is erroneous. In case ol Rqrnrrcho,ndrappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alliance?, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the monthly income of a daily wage labourer at Rs.4,5O0/-. Therefore, the income o[ the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.6,000/- per month and interest ought to have been awarded at 9yo per annum- Hence, the appeal. 7 . During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel lor the claimants contended that the Tribunal has taken tl-re income of the deceased meagerly at Rs.3,O00/- per month "vhen Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has taken the income of labourer at Rs.4,50O/- per month in Ramachandruppa's case (2 supra) disposed of in the year 2O11. Apart from being an agriculturist, the income of the deceased as house u.ife was not taken into consideration and therefore, there is an error in awarding the compensation. Lastly, the counscl sought increase in the percentage of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded.

8. Learned counsel for respondents argued that the tribunal has awarded the compensation which is just and fair but conceded that the legal ratio laid down in National Insurance t t