P Naga Varalaxmi vs Syed Pasha
2025 Latest Caselaw 1162 Tel

Telangana High Court

P Naga Varalaxmi vs Syed Pasha on 21 January, 2025

            HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                          I.A.No.1 of 2024
                                IN/AND
                      M.A.C.M.A.No.275 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - XXV Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter be referred as 'the Tribunal') in

M.V.O.P.No.1392 of 2012, dated 31.08.2017, the claim petitioners

in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation and filed I.A.1 of 2024 requesting to

amend the claim amount from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/-

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they

were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who

are the mother, father and elder brother of Late P.Naga

Chandrasekhar @ Chandu (hereinafter be referred as 'the

deceased') filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the

deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on the

intervening night of 21/22.03.2012 at about 13.30 hours near

Bowenpally, Hyderabad. It is stated by the petitioners that on the

intervening night of 21/22.03.2012 at about 13.30 hours, when

the deceased-P.Naga Chandrasekhar @ Chandu along with others

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

was proceeding in Chevrolet Car Bearing No.AP-09-CE-8110 from

Suchitra towards Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad on N.H.44 road and

when the car reached Bowenpally cantonment area, one Lorry

bearing No.AP-16-TU-1160, which was parked in the middle of the

road without any indicators and parking lights, was not visible to

the driver of the said car as it was dark and there were no street

lights. As such, the car rammed into the parked lorry. Though the

driver of car applied breaks, but due to sudden vision of the lorry,

the car could not be controlled at once. As a result, the deceased

sustained grievous injuries to his Head and all over his body.

Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and

while undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to

injuries on the same day.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Bowenpally Police Station,

registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2012 under Section 304-A IPC

against both the driver of Chevrolet car and Lorry.

5. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged 23

years and is an Engineering Graduate and was working in

M/s.Cubic Transmissions Private Limited and used to draw

monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- and contribute the same for

maintenance of his family. Apart from this, he had an overseas

employment offer for which he was ready with visa and was about

to leave within a short period where he would have earned

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

Rs.1,00,000/- per month as starting salary. Due to his sudden

and untimely death, the petitioners lost their bread winner and

were put to mental shock and agony and hence filed claim petition

seeking compensation against the respondents.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-

parte. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the material averments made in the claim petition which

includes, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the

driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-16-TU-1160 and contended that the

particulars of policy mentioned in the petition were not tallying

with the records of Insurance Company and that the driver of

Chevrolet car do not hold valid and effective driving license at the

time of accident and he was not authorized to drive the said vehicle

and the said car is not road worthy to ply and the petitioners have

foisted a false case against the driver of lorry for unlawful gain for

which they are not entitled for any compensation and that

respondent Nos.1 & 2 failed to comply the statutory demand and

the concerned Police also failed to forward relevant documents

within 30 days from the date of information, as such, respondent

No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and

that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence

prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

7. Respondent No.4/ Owner of Chevrolet Car bearing No.AP-09-

CE-8110 filed his counter denying the material averments made in

the claim petition and admitted that he is the owner of the Car and

respondent No.5 is the insurer of the said Car and stated that the

accident occurred only due to the negligence on part of the driver

of the lorry who left the lorry on the road without taking any

precautions like blinking parking lights and indicators. He also

contended that the car involved in the accident was insured with

respondent No.5 and the policy was in force as on the date of

accident. Therefore, if any compensation is awarded, respondent

No.5 is liable for payment of the same and therefore prayed to

dismiss the claim against it.

8. Respondent No.5/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the policy issued in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of

crime Car bearing No.AP-09-CE-8110. It also contended that as

per FIR and charge sheet, the accident occurred only due to the

negligent act of the driver of the stationed lorry bearing No.AP-16-

TU-1160 who parked the Lorry on the road without taking

necessary precautions. As such, respondent No.3, who issued

insurance policy to the subject lorry, is liable to pay compensation

to the petitioners. It further contended that respondent No.4 failed

to comply the statutory demand of forwarding all relevant

documents within 30 days from the date of information and that

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to

dismiss the same against it.

9. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had

framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether P.Naga Chandra Sekhar @ Chandu died in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry Bearing No.AP-16-TU-1160 and Chevrolet Car bearing No.AP-09-CE-8110?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief?

10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs1 and 2

were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of

respondents 1 to 4, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced,

but Ex.B2-Copy of Insurance policy was marked on behalf of

respondent No.3. On behalf of respondent No.5, RWs 1 and 2 were

examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

11. Based on the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition

of the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.13,21,000/-

along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till

the date of realization payable by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 jointly and

severally. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the

claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation.

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

12. Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for

the appellants and Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned Standing counsel

for Respondent No.5/Insurance Company. Perused the record.

13. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellants are

that the learned Tribunal erred in considering the income of the

deceased @ Rs.12,000/- per month; erred in not awarding future

prospects to the income of the deceased and erred in not awarding

amounts under conventional heads and therefore requested to

allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.5

contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence

and documents available on record, awarded reasonable

compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.

15. Now the point that arises for determination is,

Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

POINT:

16. This Court has perused the entire record. Since there is no

dispute about the manner of accident and liability of respondents

and since the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on those aspects

were not challenged, there is no necessity to again delve into the

said aspects. The only point that has to be dealt with in the

present Appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

17. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased @

Rs.25,000/- per month on the ground that he is an Engineering

Graduate and working in private firm i.e., M/s.Cubic

Transmissions Private Limited, Hyderabad and used to draw

income of Rs.25,000/- per month.

18. It is pertinent to state that though the petitioners contended

that the deceased used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month by working

in a private firm and filed Ex.A7-Training Certificate issued by the

employer of the deceased to that effect, but the said certificate do

not disclose the pay and allowances drawn by the deceased.

Further, the petitioners had not examined the person who issued

Ex.A7 Certificate. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, taking into

consideration the fact that the deceased is a B.Tech Graduate,

assessed his monthly income @ 12,000/- per month which this

Court considers the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to

interfere with the same. Since the Tribunal failed to consider

awarding future prospects to the income of the deceased, this

Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case between National Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs. Pranay Sethi 1, is

inclined to add 40% towards future prospects to the income of the

deceased and hereby calculate compensation as under:-

2017(6) 170 SC

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

19. As assessed by the Tribunal, the monthly income of the

deceased is Rs.12,000/-. If 40% is added to the said income as the

deceased is a private employee and is below 40 years of age, then

the net monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.16,800/-.

Since the deceased being Bachelor, if 50% is deducted towards his

personal expenses, then his net monthly income comes to Rs.

8,400/- and the annual income comes to Rs.1,00,800/-. After

applying multiplier '18' as the deceased being 23 years old, then

the total loss of earnings would come to Rs.18,14,400/-. Apart

from this, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards

funeral expenses of the deceased which this Court finds the same

to be meager and hereby grant a sum of Rs.33,000/- towards

conventional heads, for the deceased being Bachelor, by relying

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National

Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi 2. Hence, the appellants are

entitled to a total compensation Rs.18,47,400/-

20. As far as liability is concerned, since the accident occurred

due to the negligence of the driver of crime Lorry bearing No.AP-16-

TU-1160 and Ex.B2- insurance policy issued in respect of lorry

was in force as on the date of accident, hence the learned Tribunal

had rightly held that respondent Nos.2 & 3, who are the owner and

insurer of crime lorry, are liable to pay compensation.

2017 (6) 170 SC

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

21. So far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded

interest @ 9% per annum which this Court finds it to be excess

and hereby reduce the same to 7.5% per annum by relying upon

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.

Rajbir Singh and others 3 .

22. It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of the

Appeal, the claimants have filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 for amending the

claim amount from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- and since it

is settled law that claimants are entitled for just and fair

compensation, this Court deems fit and proper to allow I.A.No.1 of

2024 by amending the claim amount from Rs.25,00,000/- to

Rs.40,00,000/-.

23. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.13,21,000/- to

Rs.18,47,400/- and I.A.No.1 of 2024, filed for amending the claim

amount, is allowed. The enhanced compensation shall carry

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization payable by respondent Nos.2 & 3 jointly and severally

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. Upon such deposit, since appellant No.3 is declared as

not entitled for compensation as he is having his own source of

income, therefore, appellant Nos.1 & 2 are entitled to withdraw the

3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

enhanced compensation as per the apportionment made by the

Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

24. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.21.01.2025 ysk

MGP,J I..No.1 of 2024 in/and

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

IN/AND M.A.C.M.A.No.275 OF 2019

Dt.21.01.2025 ysk