Telangana High Court

Smt. Vadavalasa Meenakshi vs Mr. B.Srinu on 23 April, 2025

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

            M.A.C.M.A.NOs.263 and 403 of 2024

COMMON JUDGMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.263 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the

judgment and decree, dated 07.11.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.1236

of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B.Nagar by the insurance company being

aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the

judgment and decree, dated 07.11.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.1236

of 2016 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B.nagar, by the claimants not being

satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Since both these appeals are filed against the same

award dated 07.11.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.1236 of 2016, they

are heard together and being disposed of by this common

judgment.

LNA,J MACMA Nos.263 and 403 of 2024

4. Heard Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the

appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024 and respondent

Nos.1 to 4 in M.A.C.M.A.No.263 of 2024.

5. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the

appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.263 of 2024 and respondent No.3

in M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024.

6. For convenience, M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2024 is taken up

as lead case, in so far as facts are concerned.

7. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as

under:

7.1. One Vadavalasa Bala Krishna, was on duty as a driver

and driving a Scorpio bearing No.OD-23A-3333, towards

Cuttack with two passengers on 06.07.2016 and when he

reached a petrol bunk near Govind Nagar Village, a truck

bearing No.AP-05TU-9198, driven by respondent No.1 in a

rash and negligent manner came out of petrol bunk and

collided with Scorpio vehicle and as a result the said Bala

Krishna died on spot. The police of Golanthara in Ganjam LNA,J MACMA Nos.263 and 403 of 2024

District, Orissa State, registered a case in Crime No.100 of

2016 under Section 304-A of the India Penal Code against

respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is driver, respondent No.2

is owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 is insurer of the

crime vehicle.

8. Appellant No.1 being wife of the deceased, appellant

No.2 being son and appellant Nos.3 and 4 being the parents

of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.1236 of 2016 before the

tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account

of the death of the deceased. Respondent Nos.1 and 2

remained ex-parte and respondent No.3 filed counter denying

allegations and contended that accident has taken place due

to negligence of deceased himself, who dashed the truck from

behind and therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay

compensation.

9. The Tribunal, basing on the above pleadings, framed the

following issues:

LNA,J MACMA Nos.263 and 403 of 2024

(i) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties ?

(ii) Whether the accident that occurred on 06.07.2016 at

about 2.45 P.M. on NH-16, in front of Indian Petrol Pump

near Govinda Nagar village, Ganjam District, Odisha, was due

to rash, negligent and high speed driving of Truck bearing

No.AP-05U-9198, by its driver?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation

and if so, what quantum and from whom?

(iv) To what relief?

10. Subsequently, the issues were re-cast as follows:-

(i) Whether the accident that occurred on 06.07.2016 at

about 2.45 P.M. in front of Indian petrol Bunk near Govinda

Nagar Village, Ganjam District, Odisha, was due to the

negligence of respondent No.1 in driving the Truck bearing

No.AP-05TU-9198?

LNA,J MACMA Nos.263 and 403 of 2024

(ii) Whether Vadavalasa Bala Krishna died as a result of

injuries sustained in the said accident?

(iii) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of

Vadavalasa Bala Krishna?

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from which

of the respondents?

(v) What relief?

11. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the

claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8

were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, RW1 was

examined and Ex.B1-Office copy of Insurance Policy was

marked.

12. The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 07.11.2023

allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.20,83,072/- as

compensation and directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay the LNA,J MACMA Nos.263 and 403 of 2024

compensation amount jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the

award, dated 07.11.2023, the present appeals are filed.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and

further contended that the Tribunal has considered the

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,398 /- per month

erroneously.

14. He further contended that the appellants have lost their

only earning member of the family at a very young age and

therefore, the appellants are put to shock, mental agony and

further appellant No.1 has lost her conjugal rights at a very

younger age. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have

considered the monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.20,000/- in terms of judgment passed in Sushila and

others v. Ram Swaroop and others 1.

15. Per contra, Learned counsel for respondent No.3/

appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the tribunal

2023 ACJ 2028 SC LNA,J MACMA Nos.263 and 403 of 2024

has grossly erred in considering the income of the deceased

as Rs.9,398/- per month, which is very high, without there

being any proof of income. He would further submit that the

accident has taken place because of negligence of the

deceased, who was driving the vehicle at a high speed and

whereas truck was coming out of petrol bunk slowly.

Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the

negligence on the part of the deceased. He further submitted

that driver of the truck was not having valid driving license,

as on the date of accident and therefore, the Insurance

Company ought not to have been fastened with the liability.

He further submitted that interest @ 9% per annum awarded

by the Tribunal is very high and the same is liable to be

reduced.

16. Perusal of impugned award would disclose that on the

basis of date of birth mentioned in the driving license which

was marked as Ex.A8, the Tribunal has considered the age of

deceased as 30 years and rightly applied multiplier 17 and

deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of the LNA,J MACMA Nos.263 and 403 of 2024

deceased. Further, basing on the information published by

the Labour Bureau of Government of India, wherein, the

minimum wages for a driver working in private motor

transport in Telangana in the year 2016 was Rs.313.25 paisa

per day, the Tribunal considered monthly income as

Rs.9,398/-, and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss

of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards for funeral expenses and

sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium.

17. The impugned award would further disclose that the

Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence

placed on record and did not agree with the contention of the

Insurance Company that the accident was caused due to

negligence of the deceased. The Tribunal has observed that

the driver of the truck ought to have been careful while

joining the highway and should not have merged without

observing the oncoming traffic, as vehicles on the highway are

typically move at high speed. Therefore, this Court is not

inclined to consider the contention of respondent No.3-

Insurance Company that there was negligence on the part of LNA,J MACMA Nos.263 and 403 of 2024

the deceased and also in view of the fact that respondent

No.3-Insurance Company has failed to establish its

contentions by placing any evidence or material on record.

18. However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding loss of

consortium to all the appellants in accordance with the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance

Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi 2 , Therefore, the consortium

awarded by the Tribunal is required to be modified and all the

appellants are entitled to Rs. 44,000/- each.

19. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per

annum which is on higher side and therefore, the same is

modified to 7.5% per annum. The appellants have not placed

any material or evidence on record to show that the deceased

was earning Rs.20,000/- as monthly income and therefore,

the same cannot be considered.

20. In the light of the above discussion, the compensation

amount is revised as under:

(2017)16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA Nos.263 and 403 of 2024

Income Rs.13,157[(9,398+3,759)40%future prospects] Deduction towards personal Rs.3,289.25 (i.e., one-fourth of expenses Rs.13,157) Total Monthly income Rs.9,868(i.e.,Rs.13,157-

Rs.3,289.25)

Loss of dependency Rs.20,13,072(i.e.,Rs.9,868*17*12)

Compensation for loss of Rs.1,76,000/- consortium (Rs.44,000/-*4) Rs.15,000/-

Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

Funeral expenses Total compensation to be Rs.22,19,072/- paid:

21. Both the Appeals are partly allowed and the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.20,83,072/- to

Rs.22,19,072/-and the said modified amount shall carry

interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of realization. The respondents in M.A.C.M.A.No.403

of 2024, are liable to pay the said compensation amount jointly

and severally within a period of eight (6) weeks from the date of