Telangana High Court

Smt. Palleti Chandrakala vs Bheem Singh Rathod on 11 April, 2025

                                 1




     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.537 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order

and decree dated 18.11.2020 in O.P.No.273 of 2018 passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on

22.02.2018 at about 03.00 P.M., the deceased and his father were

proceeding to Nampally in Nalgonda District from Hyderabad in

order to pay open 10th class exam fee on their splendor bike

bearing No. AP-09-AM-9360; that when they reached near Pipes

Company, Agapally Village, respondent No.3, being the driver of

lorry bearing No.AP-24-W-4196 drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the bike of the deceased in opposite

direction, due to which, the deceased died on the spot and his

father sustained multiple fractures and was shifted to Nizam's

Institute of Medical Sciences. It is their case that the deceased

used to work as a Bike Team Technician in Skyway Networks prior

to the accident and earning Rs.11,000/- per month and he was

also earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working as part time driver ETD,J MACMA No.537_2021

and in total earning Rs.20,000/- per month. They claimed a

compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. Respondent Nos.1 & 3 filed a counter denying the averments

of the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the

deceased and further contended that the accident occurred not due

to the negligence of the lorry driver but due to the negligence of the

deceased. It is further stated that the father of the deceased being

a pillion rider on the bike tried to arrange helmet on his son

(deceased) while the bike was moving and due to the same, there

was obstruction to the vision of his son and as he was driving the

bike at a high speed, he himself came and dashed the lorry.

5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the averments in

the petition and further contended that the deceased who was

riding the bike at the time of accident was not holding valid driving

license at the time of accident, that the driver of the lorry -

respondent No.3 was also not holding valid driving license and

thus insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal

has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether accident occurred on 22.02.2018 at 1.45 P.M near pipes company at Agapally village, Manchal Mandal, R.R.District due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AP-24W-4196 by the respondent No.3 herein?

ETD,J MACMA No.537_2021

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent?

3) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. No

witnesses were examined for the respondents but Ex.B.1 was

marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.15,35,800/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

9. Heard the submission of Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel

for the appellants and Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for

the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

Tribunal has failed in applying the principles and guidelines of the

Hon'ble Apex Court and granted meager amount towards

compensation and also contended that the Tribunal assessed the

income of the deceased to be very low and also that the Tribunal

has failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court that for loss of consortium, loss of estate and amounts

towards funeral expenses were to be revised every three years @

10% and thus they prayed to enhance the compensation by setting

aside the order and decree of the Tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.537_2021

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation

and that there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the

Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) It is asserted by the appellants that the deceased used to

earn Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a Bike Team

Technician in Skyway Networks and also by working as a part time

driver. Appellants have filed Exs.A.6 to A.8 in support of their

contention with regard to the income of the deceased. Ex.A.6 is

the salary certificate of the deceased issued by Skyway Networks.

In Ex.A.6 dated 20.03.2018, it is mentioned that deceased used to

work as Bike Technician in Skyway Networks company from

01.07.2017 to 31.10.2017 and that he is paid a salary of

Rs.11,000/-. Ex.A.7 is the driving license of the deceased and it is

valid from 11.12.2014 to 10.12.2034. Ex.A.8 is the salary

certificate issued by Jesus Grace Church Ministries wherein it is

mentioned that the deceased used to draw monthly salary of ETD,J MACMA No.537_2021

Rs.9,000/-. P.W.3 is Rev.Dr. M.S. Dayanand who issued Ex.A.8.

P.W.4-G.Naresh Babu is the team leader in Skyway Networks who

deposed with regard to Ex.A.6. In his cross-examination it is

elicited that he has not filed any document to show that he has

paid salary to the deceased but he stated that he paid him in cash.

Thus, the petitioners tried to place it on record that the deceased

used to work in Skyway Network and also in Jesus Grace Church

Ministries and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Too technical

approach cannot be adopted in such cases. On a reasonable

hypothesis, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to assess

the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.10,000/- per month.

b) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1, 40% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. Ex.A.4/ P.M.E report shows

that the deceased is aged 23 years. Therefore, by adding 40%

towards future prospects would give Rs.14,000/- (Rs.10,000/-+

40%= Rs.14,000/-) per month, which comes to Rs.14,000/- x 12 =

Rs.1,68,000/- per annum.

c) The deceased is a bachelor and hence 50% of the deduction

need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this

would come up to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.1,68,000/- (-) Rs.84,000/-).

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.537_2021

d) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A.4

reveals the age of the deceased as 23 years. The multiplier should

be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column

No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation 2. The deceased being aged 23 years, the appropriate

multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency

comes up to Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.84,000/- X 18 = Rs.15,12,000/-).

e) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It was

further held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by 10% for

every three years. In the light of the same, Rs.18,150/- towards

loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses have to be

awarded.

f) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3, the Apex Court has elaborately

discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has

further held that the parents and children of the deceased are also

entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the

claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium,

hence, the compensation amount under this head would be

Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- X 2 = Rs.96,800/-). Therefore, the

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.537_2021

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.15,35,800/- to that of Rs.16,45,100/-. Point No.1 is answered

accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the

order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified and

accordingly compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of

Rs.15,35,800/- is enhanced to Rs.16,45,100/-.

15. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the MACMA filed by the petitioners is partly

allowed, modifying the order and decree dated 18.11.2020 in

O.P.No.273 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at

L.B.Nagar, enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,35,800/- to

Rs.16,45,100/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall

carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of claim petition

till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any,

is forfeited. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the

compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after

deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit,

the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without ETD,J MACMA No.537_2021

furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted

by the Tribunal. No costs.