Siyadri Param Jyothy vs Omkar S. Patwardhan
2025 Latest Caselaw 3759 Tel

Telangana High Court

Siyadri Param Jyothy vs Omkar S. Patwardhan on 10 June, 2025

                                 1



      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.228 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 11.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1279 of 2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad (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 was that on

31.10.2016 at about 10:30 hours when the deceased was returning

home from Cherlapally on motor bike bearing No.AP-20-AN-7547

and when he reached Ganesh Temple kaman, B.N.Reddy Nagar,

Cherlapally, the driver of Nano Car bearing No.AP-11-AS-3976

proceeding from HCL to Cherlapally, driven his car in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which he

sustained head injury and died on the spot. The claimants have

sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 3 remained ex-parte.

ETD,J MACMA No.228_2021

5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company opposed the

averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further

contended by the Insurance Company that the driver of Nano Car

does not possess valid driving license as on the date of the

accident. He also contended that the accident has not occurred

due to the negligence of the car driver, but it occurred due to the

negligence of the deceased. Thus, the Insurance Company is not

liable to pay any compensation.

6) Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident that occurred on 31.10.2016 at about 10:30 hours near Ganesh Temple Kaman, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of Nano Car bearing No.AP-11-AS-3976 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what quantum and from whom ?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3

and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no

oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked with consent.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.17,20,000/- Aggrieved by the same, the

present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement

of compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.228_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri A.S. Narayana, learned counsel

for the appellants and Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned counsel for the

respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has failed to follow the principles laid down by the Apex

Court in determining the compensation. He further argued that the

Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased

and has failed to award 40% towards future prospects as the

deceased was aged about 36 years. He further argued that the

Tribunal has granted meagre amount of compensation and thus

prayed to enhance the same.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted

that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1 may

be followed in awarding future prospects.

11. Based on the above submission, this Court frames the

following points for determination:-

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.228_2021

12. Point No.1:

a) The grievance of the claimants is that the compensation

granted by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. It is their case

that the deceased used to work as a Helper in Sai Teja Papers and

used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. In support of their claim they

got examined PW3 and got marked Ex.A6/Salary Certificate. A

perusal of Ex.A6 reveals that it is issued by the Managing Partner

of Sai Teja Papers, certifying that the deceased Siyadri Prasad

worked as a helper in their godown for the past 13 years till his

death in the motor vehicle accident on 31.10.2016 and that he

was paid wages of Rs.12,500/- per month (without O.T).

b) The evidence of PW3 in chief examination is to the effect that

he has issued Ex.A6 and that the deceased used to earn

Rs.12,500/- per month as a helper in their godown and that he

worked for 13 years till his death. In his cross examination he

admitted that labour laws are applicable to an employee who works

for 13 years and that he did not follow the labour laws. Ex.A7 is

the Copy of Certificate of registration of Sai Teja Papers. Ex.A8 is

the copy of VAT registration certificate issued by Commercial Tax

Department. Ex.A9 is the Bank Statement of M/s. Sai Teja Papers

dated 02.07.2018. Ex.A10 is the Attested Copy of Income Tax

Statement of M/s. Sai Teja Papers. Ex.A11 is the Xerox Copies of ETD,J MACMA No.228_2021

registers. Ex.A7, A8 and A11 were marked after verification of

originals by the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioners could effectively

prove before the Tribunal that Sai Teja Papers was a registered

dealer dealing with wholesale waste paper business.

c) Ex.A11 is the Attendance Register maintained by Sai Teja

Papers and it shows the name of the deceased disclosing that the

deceased used to work in their godown. Thus, nothing material

could be elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve his

evidence. Therefore, considering the same, the Tribunal has

assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.12,500/- 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 36

years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 12,500+5000

would give Rs.17,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.17,500/- x

12 = Rs.2,10,000/- per annum.

e) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore,

1/3rd deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.228_2021

expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,40,000/- (Rs.2,10,000/-

(-) Rs.70,000/-).

f) The Post Mortem Examination Report filed under Ex.A4

reveals the age of the deceased as '36' years. 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 Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation 3, the deceased being aged '36' years, the appropriate

multiplier is '15'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as

Rs.21,00,000/- (Rs.1,40,000 x 15).

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.1,45,200/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.228_2021

Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded.

i) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following

compensation amounts:-

1. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Rs.21,00,000/-

2. Compensation towards loss of consortium to the Rs.1,45,200/-

3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-

4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-

                    Total                                                 Rs.22,81,500/-




j)    Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are

entitled is calculated as Rs.22,81,500/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.17,20,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners

are entitled for enhancement of compensation.

Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

17. POINT NO.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. 22,81,500/- from that of

Rs.17,20,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

18. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the

Order and Decree dated 11.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.1279 of 2016 ETD,J MACMA No.228_2021

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad, enhancing

the compensation from Rs.17,20,000/- to 22,81,500/- 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: 10.06.2025 ds ETD,J MACMA No.228_2021

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

M.A.C.M.A.NO.228 OF 2021 Date: .06.2025

ds