Telangana High Court
Nagapuri Sathaiah And Another vs Kodiyatar Mandabhai And 3 Others on 7 August, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.654 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 01.04.2021 in O.P.No.66 of 2017 passed by the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District
Judge, Karimnagar (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 petitioners before the Tribunal is that on
20.09.2016 at about 6:00 p.m., while the deceased and her husband
were returning from Kondapur Village to Narsingapur Village on a
Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-15-AF-7438 and on the
way at about 7:00 p.m., when they reached Yellamma Temple in the
outskirts of Thatipalli Village, one Lorry bearing No.GJ-25-U-7759
being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high
speed, dashed their motor bike due to which both the deceased and
her husband fell down, received fatal injuries and died on the spot.
Thus, the claimants sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.
ETD,J
MACMA No.654_2021
5. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter denying the
averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the
accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further
contended that the driver of the crime lorry was not having valid
driving license as on the date of the accident and that their Company
is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contented that the
negligence of the deceased-rider of the motor bike contributed to the
accident.
6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed
the following issues:-
"1. Whether the accident had occurred on account of the use of the
offending vehicle Lorry bearing No.GJ-25-U-7759 by respondent
No.1?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to
what quantum and from whom?
3. To what relief?"
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2
and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no
oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R1 was marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a
compensation of Rs.6,34,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present
ETD,J
MACMA No.654_2021
appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation.
9. Heard the submissions of Sri A.V.K.S Prasad, lerned counsel
for the appellants and Sri Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for
the respondent No.4.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
parents-in-law are the claimants in this case and that they lost both
their son and daughter-in-law and that their daughter-in-law used to
do tailoring work and used to earn around Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/-
per month, but the tribunal has assessed the income to be very low
as Rs.3,000/- per month. He relied upon a decision, wherein the
Apex Court has assessed the income of a '12' year boy as
Rs.12,000/- per month and thus, prayed to consider the same and
enhance compensation. He further argued that the Tribunal has not
awarded any amounts under loss of consortium and hence, prayed
to award the same.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has
submitted that the deceased is a tailor and there is no proof of
earnings. Hence, the tribunal was right in assessing the income of
ETD,J
MACMA No.654_2021
Rs.3,000/- and that there is no need to enhance the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the
following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of
compensation.
2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal
need any interference?
3. To what relief?
13. Point No.1:-
a) The claimants herein are aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation.
b) PW1 asserted that the deceased used to work as a tailor and
used to earn Rs.10,000 to 12,000/- per month. It is the common
knowledge that household ladies do tailoring work at home apart
from attending to household duties. In the absence of any proof,
some amount of guess work is required in assessing the income of
the deceased.
ETD,J
MACMA No.654_2021
c) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Apex Court has held
that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer,
Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. But in the
present case, the deceased is a housewife apart from doing tailoring
work as per the contention of the claim petitioners. Therefore, on a
reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in
Ramachandrappas's case, the monthly income of the deceased is
assessed as Rs.5000/- per month which appears to be justified.
d) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 40% of the income needs to
be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 22
years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 5000+2,000 would
give Rs.7000/- per month, which comes to Rs.7,000/- x 12 =
Rs.84,000/- per annum.
e) The number of claimants herein are two and therefore, 1/3rd
deduction need to be made to her income towards personal
(2011) 12 SCC 236
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
ETD,J
MACMA No.654_2021
expenses and this would come upto Rs.56,000/- (Rs.84,000/- (-)
Rs.28,000/-).
f) 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 3. The deceased being aged 22
years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the
loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.10,08,000/- (56,000 x 18).
g) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss
of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said
amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.
h) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 4, the Apex Court has elaborately
discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has
further held that not only the spouse but 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/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an
2009 (6) SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.654_2021
amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/-
towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded.
i) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation
amounts:
1. Compensation under the head of Rs.10,08,000/-
loss of dependency
2. Compensation towards loss of Rs.96,800/-
consortium
3. Compensation towards loss of Rs.18,150/-
estate
4. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses
Total Rs.11,41,100/-
j) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,34,800/-, while, this Court
arrived at a compensation of Rs.11,41,100/- and hence, it is held
that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation.
Thus, Point No. 2 is answered accordingly.
15. Point No.3:-
In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, it is held
that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with
regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced
the compensation to Rs.11,41,100/- from that of Rs.6,34,800/- i.e.,
awarded by the Tribunal.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
ETD,J
MACMA No.654_2021
16. POINT NO.4:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order
and Decree dated 01.04.2021 in O.P.No.66 of 2017 passed by the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District
Judge, Karimnagar, by enhancing the compensation from
Rs.6,34,800/- to Rs.11,41,100/- 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. The respondents 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
claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing
any security.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 07.08.2025
ds
