[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs A Narasimha And 4 Others on 2 December, 2025

       IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD
           THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
                        MACMA.No.3335 of 2014
                      DATED: 02ND DECEMBER, 2025


Between:
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager, P.O.B.No.11,
302, III Floor, Oasis Plaza, Tilak Road,
Abids, Hyderabad.
                                       ... Appellant/respondent No.2
                                 And
1.A.Narasimha
2.A.Padmavathi
3.A.Pallavi
                                       ... Respondents/petitioners
4.Kesineni Srinivas
5.Boyapati Mallikarjuna
                                       ...Respondents/
                                             Respondent Nos.1&3
                                2/9
                                                             BRMR, J
                                                 MACMA.No.3335 of 2014




          THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                      MACMA.No.3335 of 2014


JUDGMENT:

1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV

Act') assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal - cum - XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2257 of 2012

dated 26.03.2014.

2. Appellant herein is the respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to

3 herein are the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the

respondent Nos.1 and 3 before the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned

Tribunal erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-

towards compensation in favour of the claimants (respondent

Nos.1 to 3 herein), which is excessive and on higher side. The

Tribunal ought not to have taken the monthly income of the

deceased - A.Arun Kumar at Rs.30,000/- per month without any

basis and the Tribunal ought not to have come to a conclusion that

the deceased is able to earn atleast Rs.30,000/- per month basing

BRMR, J

on the loan installments and shop rents paid by the deceased.

Further he submits that 50% of the income has to be deducted as

the deceased is an unmarried person and prayed to allow the

appeal.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - petitioners

submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the

facts of the case but awarded less compensation. In fact just

compensation has to be awarded and prayed to dismiss the appeal

and award enhanced compensation.

5.1 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - petitioners have filed O.P under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 475/1B of the

A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 140(C) of MV Act

with a prayer to pass an award for Rs.25,00,000/- with interest at

the rate of 18% per annum towards compensation for the death of

A.Arun Kumar in a road traffic accident.

5.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and

respondent No.3 - petitioner No.3 are the parents and sister of

A.Arun Kumar. A.Arun Kumar had been to Sabarimalai along with

his friend by name Santosh Kumar and they were returning to

Hyderabad on 19.01.2012, they boarded one private travels bus

bearing No.AP-16-TB-6600. When the bus reached near SC colony,

Gummalakunta Village, Banthalapalli Mandal, Ananthapur District

BRMR, J

on National Highway No.205, at about 04.00 hours the driver of

the bus without noticing the stationed lorry which was stopped on

the left side of the road, ramed due to high speed in a rash and

negligent manner and caused the accident. A.Arun Kumar and

other persons sustained severe injuries, died on the spot. The

deceased and another person died on the spot. Stationed lorry

bearing No.AP-03-TA-2101 was stopped on the left side of the road

due to some technical defect. Deceased was shifted to Government

Hospital, Dharmavaram for postmortem. On the complaint, a case

in Crime No.8 of 2012 was registered by Police Banthalapalli,

Ananthapur District.

5.3 Deceased - A.Arun Kumar was hale and healthy, was a

bachelor and aged about 32 years at the time of accident. He was

doing kirana business and also doing real estate business, earning

an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month and he is the only earning

member of the family. Due to premature and unexpected death of

the deceased, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - petitioners were put to

hardship, they lost their bread winner and claimed compensation

of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per

annum.

6. Respondent No.4 herein - respondent No.1 - owner of the

bus bearing No.AP-16-TB-6600 and respondent No.5 herein -

BRMR, J

respondent No.3 - owner of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP 03

TA 2101 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

7. Appellant - respondent No.2 has filed counter in the O.P and

disputed the age and income of the deceased, validity of the driving

licence of the driver of the bus and also the accident. It further

contended that the claim made by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 -

petitioners is excessive and exorbitant.

8. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. 1.Whether the accident occurred on 19.01.2012 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing No.AP-16-TB-6600 causing death of the deceased?

2. 2.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

9. Respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1,

examined PW2 - P.Ramesh and also examined PW3 - A.Srui Babu

@ Suresh Babu and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. No witnesses are

examined on behalf of appellant - respondent No.2.

10. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced

by the petitioners - respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, has partly

allowed the appeal and awarded a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- together

with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from

the date of petition till the entire amount is realized payable by

BRMR, J

respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., respondent No.4 herein and appellant

herein jointly and severally.

11. Heard learned counsels on record and perused the material.

12. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - petitioners and if so?

2. Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.2257 of 2012 dated 26.03.2014 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so does it requires interference of this Court or not?

13. Appellant has challenged the quantum in the appeal.

14. The learned Tribunal has not considered Ex.A15 - salary

certificate with that of the evidence of PW3 on the premise that

when the deceased is running kirana shop, it is not possible for

him to work as a Site Supervisor to run the Construction business

and thereby discarded the evidence of PW3 and Ex.A15. The

learned Tribunal observed that the deceased used to pay

Rs.5,500/- per month towards rent, Rs.6,000/- and odd towards

loan installments and held that the deceased might have been

earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month and unless he is able to

earn atleast an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month there was no

BRMR, J

necessity for him to run a business by paying Rs.6,500/- towards

loan installments and Rs.5,500/- towards rent of the premises and

arrived at a conclusion that the earning of the deceased is taken as

Rs.30,000/- per month.

15. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.30,000/- per

month, out of that deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses,

also deducted Rs.11,000/- towards loan installments and rent to

the premises and the contribution of the deceased to the family is

arrived at Rs.11,500/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the age

of the petitioner No.2 [respondent No.2 herein] as 47 and applied

the multiplier '13'. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

as under:

      Sl.No.        Name of the head       Compensation
                                           awarded     by         the
                                           Tribunal
      1.       Income                      Rs.11,500/-            per
                                           month
      2.       Annual income               Rs.1,38,000/-
                                           (11,500 x 12)
      3.       Multiplier                  Rs.17,94,000/-
                                           (1,38,000 x 13)
      4.       Funeral expenditure     and Rs.6,000/-
               transportation
      5.       Total                       Rs.18,00,000/-

payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (respondent No.4 and appellant

herein). O.P. against respondent No.3 is dismissed.

BRMR, J

16. The deceased was running kirana store by paying Rs.5,500/-

towards rent and also paying an amount of Rs.6,500/- towards

loan installments, taking into consideration of the evidence of PW1

with that of Ex.A8 - bank statement, Exs.A9 & A10 - rental

agreements, the earning of the deceased is taken as Rs.20,000/-

per month, which will meet the ends of justice and the just

compensation can be arrived at.

17. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - petitioners have stated the age of

the deceased as 32 years in the claim petition, the same is also

mentioned in Ex.A2- CC of Charge Sheet, Ex.A3-CC of Inquest and

Ex.A4 CC of PME. Hence the age of the deceased is taken as 32

years and the personal expenses is deducted at 50% as the

deceased is bachelor and the appropriate multiplier in the age

group of 31 to 35 is '16' as per the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Smt. Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1.

18. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under:

       Sl.No.            Name of the head        Compensation
                                                awarded by this
                                                     Court
       1.        Income                      Rs.20,000/-

2. Deduct 50% towards personal Rs.10,000/-

                 expenses                    (20,000  -  [50%   of
                                                    20,000)
       3.        Annual income                      Rs.1,20,000/-
                                                    (10,000 x 12)
       4.        Multiplier '16'                    Rs.19,20,000/-


    (2009) 6 SCC 121

                                                                           BRMR, J





                                                         (1,20,000 x 16)
       5.        Loss of estate                          Rs.15,000/-
       6.        Funeral expenses                        Rs.15,000/-
       7.        Consortium                              Rs.1,20,000/-
                 (Rs.40,000/- to each claimant)
       8.        Loss of love and affection              Rs.1,50,000/-
                 Total                                   Rs.22,20,000/-

19. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6%

per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the decision in

the case of Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others 2.

20. In the result, MACMA.No.3335 of 2014 is dismissed and the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: