Telangana High Court
Banothu Laxmi vs R.K Constructions on 7 August, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NOs.539 & 352 OF 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated
17.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.273 of 2016 passed by the Chairman,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, 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 petitioners before the tribunal is that on
08.02.2016, while the deceased was riding Yamaha FZ bike bearing
No.AP23-AA-0147 from Malakpet towards Panjagutta and when he
reached at Kanaka Durga Temple, Erramanzil, a concrete lorry
bearing No.AP-28-TD-4170 while taking U-turn has hit the bike of the
deceased, due to which he fell down, sustained injuries and died.
The petitioners sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 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
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.539_352_2021
the deceased was not holding valid driving license as on the date of
the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation
and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer
of the bike.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration:-
"1. Whether the pleaded accident that took place on 08.02.2016 at
about 00:10 hours near Kanakadurga temple, Erramanzil,
Hyderabad due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry
bearing No.AP-28TD-4170 resulting death of deceased by name
Banothu Mohan Rao?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to
what quantum and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief ?"
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3
and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no
oral evidence was adduced.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.23,54,800/-. Aggrieved by the said award
MACMA.No.352 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company and
MACMA.No.539 of 2021 is filed by the claimants.
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.539_352_2021
9. Heard the submissions of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company Sri A.S. Narayana, learned
counsel for the claimants.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted
that the deceased was a bachelor, but the tribunal has failed to
consider the same and has deducted only 1/3rd, while it has to
deduct 50%. He further argued that the tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/-, though the earnings of
the deceased was not proved before the tribunal. He further argued
that the tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% and prayed the Court to
reduce the same.
11. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that they
have filed Ex.P11/Salary Certificate showing that the deceased used
to earn Rs.15,228/- towards gross salary, hence the same may be
taken into consideration after deducting the professional tax. He
further argued that the tribunal has assessed the income to be very
low as Rs.12,000/- per month inspite of the proof filed under Ex.P11.
He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.
12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.539_352_2021
1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
2. Whether the Order and Decree granted by the Tribunal need any
interference?
3. To what relief.
13. Point No.1:
a) The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was
earning Rs.15,228/- per month and that they have proved the same
vide Ex.P11.
b) A perusal of Ex.P11 reveals that it is a pay slip issued by Axis
Securities in the name of the deceased-Mohan Rao Banothu
showing his designation as Business Executive and that he was paid
a gross salary of Rs.15,228/- and the date of joining is shown as
13.06.2014, the said pay slip under Ex.P11 pertains to December
2015 and the date of accident is 08.02.2016. Thus, through Ex.P11
the petitioners could place it on record that the deceased was
earning a salary of Rs.15,228/- by working as a Business Executive
in Axis Securities. The profession tax is Rs.150/-, thus deducting the
same as per the dicta laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 1, the income of the deceased while assessing the
compensation has to be taken as total income minus tax and it does
2009 (6) SCC 121
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.539_352_2021
not fall under taxable range for the year 2015. Therefore, (15,228 -
150/-) comes up to Rs.15078/-.
c) 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 28
years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 15078+6031 would
give Rs.21,109/- per month, which comes to Rs.21,109/- x 12 =
Rs.2,53,310/- per annum.
d) The petitioners herein are the parents of the deceased. Since
the deceased is bachelor at the time of the alleged accident as
revealed from the evidence of PW1 and the Inquest Report under
Ex.A2, 50% deduction need to be made to the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to
Rs.1,26,655/- (2,53,310 x 50/100).
e) 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 28
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
2009 (6) SCC 121
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.539_352_2021
years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '17'. Therefore, the
loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.21,53,318/- (1,26,655 x 17).
f) 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.
g) 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
amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/-
towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded.
h) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation
amounts:
1. Compensation under the head of loss Rs.21,53,130/-
of dependency
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.539_352_2021
2. Compensation towards loss of Rs.96,800/-
consortium
3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
4. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses
Total Rs.22,86,238/-
i) Thus, this Court arrives at a compensation of Rs.22,85,606/-
while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,54,800/- erroneously by
making a deduction of 1/3rd instead of 50% as the tribunal failed to
observe that the deceased was a bachelor. Hence, it is held that the
compensation arrived by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.2:-
a) In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, the order and
decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the
compensation from Rs.23,54,800 to Rs.22,85,606/-
b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 9% on the
quantum of compensation. The contention of the counsel for
Insurance Company is that it is too high.
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.539_352_2021
c) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Another 5;
a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5%
per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation.
d) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath
Suresh and Others 6 and National Insurance Company Limited
Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 7; also interest @ 7.5%
per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.
e) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam
Lingaiah 8; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per
annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
f) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 9; has granted 7.5
% per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till
realization.
2022 SCC Online TS 606
2023 SCC Online TS 1095
2023 SCC Online TS 1170
2024 SCC Online TS 915
2024 SCC Online TS 2050
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.539_352_2021
g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court
has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation
that is awarded in such cases.
h) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the
rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.5%.
Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. POINT NO.3:-
In the result MACMA.No.539 of 2021 filed by the claimants is
dismissed, while MACMA.No.352 of 2021 filed by the Insurance
Company is allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated
17.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.273 of 2016 passed by the Chairman,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar, by reducing the compensation
from 23,54,800/- to 22,86,238/- and reducing the rate of interest from
9% to 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
Insurance Company is 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
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.539_352_2021
withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per
their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 07.08.2025
ds
