Kethavath Ruplee And 3 Others vs Mr. R. Venkata Chary And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 3788 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kethavath Ruplee And 3 Others vs Mr. R. Venkata Chary And Another on 11 June, 2025

                                      1


        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                  M.A.C.M.A.Nos.77 & 120 OF 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

06.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.567 of 2013 passed by the Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District

Judge, Nizamabad (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 claimants before the Tribunal is that on

11.12.2004 the deceased was going by walk by the side of the road

to attend nature call and when he reached near Rekhula Bavi,

Athvelli Village at about 6:00 p.m., in the mean time rider of one

Scooter bearing No.AP-09-E-6278 came in a rash and negligent

manner with a high speed and lost control over it and dashed

against the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained fracture

injuries. Immediately, after the accident, he was shifted to Gandhi

Hospital, wherein he succumbed to death at 1:00 a.m. It is their

case that the petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 36 years

and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing Milk Business,

Labour Work and also Agriculture. Thus, they sought a

compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

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

ETD,J MACMA No.77_120_2021

5. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying all the

averments of petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident,

age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended

that the rider of the Scooter was not holding valid driving license as

on the date of the accident and that their Company is not liable to

pay any compensation.

6. Subsequently, an amendment petition was filed by the

petitioners amending Vehicle Number from AP-09-E-6278 to AP-9-

E-6276 and following which the respondent No.2 has filed

additional written statement stating that the said amendment was

intentionally done by the petitioners as the said Scooter was not

involved and it is falsely implicated in this case.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether on 11.12.2004 at about 6:30 p.m., near Rekhula Bavi at Athvelli Village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter No.AP-9E-6278 by its driver?

2. Whether Kethavath Hanmanthu received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

4. To what relief?

8. After amendment of the vehicle number by the petitioner, the

issue No.1 was re-cast on 15.04.2019 as follows:-

1. Whether on 11.12.2004 at about 6:30 p.m., near Rekhula Bavi at Athvelli Village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter No.AP-9E-6276 by its driver?

ETD,J MACMA No.77_120_2021

9. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2

and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1

and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

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

compensation of Rs.8,26,000,/-. Aggrieved by the said award,

M.A.C.M.A.No.77 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company, while

M.A.C.M.A.No.120 of 2021 is filed by the claimants.

11. Heard the submission of Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned

counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri S. Surender Reddy,

learned counsel for the claimants.

12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that

the Tribunal has committed a gross error in awarding huge

compensation and that the claim petition is filed by the claimants

in collusion with the owner of the Scooter bearing No.AP-09-E-

6276 and with the concerned Police. He further argued that the

Tribunal failed to see that the alleged accident occurred on

11.12.2004, while the petition was filed in the year 2013, which is

after nine years and that the said delay occurred as the accident

itself has not taken place with the Scooter bearing No.AP-09-E-

6276. It is his further contention that the Police recorded the

statement of the deceased and that he stated to the Police saying

that while crossing the road, an unknown auto hit him and

thereafter the claimants filed amendment petition and again ETD,J MACMA No.77_120_2021

corrected the number of the Scooter which shows that they got the

alleged crime vehicle falsely implicated. He further argued that the

charge sheet is wrongly filed against Manchala Venkatesh/rider of

the Scooter bearing No. AP-09-E-6276 at the instance of the

alleged eye witness who went to the Police Station after three

months and stated that he witnessed the accident and that the

claimants failed to examine the alleged eye witness. Thus, his

contention is that the Scooter bearing No.AP-09-E-6276 is falsely

implicated in this case and therefore, prayed to exonerate the

Insurance Company.

13. The learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand has

submitted that the Tribunal has granted meagre amount of

compensation under various heads and that they are entitled to

enhancement of compensation. He further argued that the

Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has

assessed the income of the deceased to be very low and arrived at

a less amount of compensation. He further argued that the

Tribunal failed to award any compensation for future prospects

and he therefore prayed to enhance the quantum of compensation.

14. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Scooter bearing No. AP-09-E-

6276?

ETD,J MACMA No.77_120_2021

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

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

4. To what relief?

15. Point No.1:

a) The contention of the learned counsel for Insurance

Company is that the petitioners filed the complaint with a delay of

eight months and that too have falsely implicated the Scooter

bearing No. AP-09-E-6276. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the

occurrence of the accident was on 11.12.2004, while FIR.No.297 of

2004 is registered on 12.12.2004 against an "un-known" accused.

They filed 161 Cr.P.C statement of the deceased as Ex.P3.

However, the evidentiary value of 161 Cr.P.C statement is only for

either corroboration or contradiction of the witness. Therefore, the

same is not taken into consideration while deciding a claim petition

under the Motor Vehicles Act.

b) The contents of the charge sheet reveal that while the

deceased was going by walk to attend nature call at about 18:30

hours and while crossing the road, the accused/Manchala

Venkatesh driven his Scooter bearing No. AP-09-E-6276 in a rash

and negligent manner while proceeding towards Dablipura from

Medchal and dashed the deceased, as a result he sustained blunt

injuries in the abdomen and succumbed to the injuries while

undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. It is the ETD,J MACMA No.77_120_2021

further contention of the counsel for insurer that even in the

Inquest Report it is mentioned that an unknown auto has hit the

deceased. But the Panchas for Inquest Panchanama are not the

eye witnesses to the accident, their opinion would be based on the

local enquiries. Thus, it cannot be held to be a proof of the

contention raised by the Insurance Company.

c) PW2 is examined as an eye witness to the accident. He is a

Labourer in Mushroom Company. He stated that while he was

going towards Kalakal from Medchal he saw that the deceased got

down the auto near Rekhulabaavi on NH-7 at Athvelly Village at

about 6:30 p.m., and in the meantime, the Scooter bearing No. AP-

09-E-6276 coming from Medchal and proceeding towards

Dabilpura, dashed against the deceased from behind, as a result of

which he fell down and sustained injuries. In his cross

examination, mere suggestions were given to him that he has not

witnessed the accident which was denied by him. Thus nothing

material was elicited during his cross examination to discredit his

evidence. Therefore, by the evidence of PW2 coupled with the

charge sheet, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligence of the rider of the Scooter bearing No. AP-09-E-

6276.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.77_120_2021

16. Point No.2:-

a) PW1 has asserted that the deceased used to do Agriculture

and also used to attend Labour Works and also he was a Milk

Vendor, thus he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. But PW2

has also spoken about the earnings of the deceased saying that he

is acquainted with them and he has knowledge that the deceased

used to earn Rs.20,000/- out of agriculture, labour works and by

also doing business. No other proof is filed in this regard.

b) The income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is

Rs.4,000/- per month. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the monthly

earnings of the labourer is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. The

same is considered in the present case and thus, the income of the

deceased is assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month on a reasonable

hypothesis.

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 38

years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 4500+1800 would

(2011) 12 SCC 236

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.77_120_2021

give Rs.6,300/- per month, which comes to Rs.6,300/- x 12 =

Rs.75,600/- per annum.

e) The number of claimants herein are four and therefore, 1/4th

deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

expenses and this would come up to Rs.56,700/- (Rs.75,600/- (-)

Rs.18,900/-).

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. Ex.A4/Post Mortem Examination

Report reveals the age of the deceased as 38 years. The deceased

being aged 38 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '15'.

Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,50,500/-.

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,

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.77_120_2021

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.1,93,600/- 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.

i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are

entitled is calculated as Rs.10,80,400/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.8,26,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners

are entitled for enhancement of compensation.

Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

17. POINT NO.3:

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. 10,80,400/- from that of

Rs.8,26,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

18. POINT NO.4:

In the result, MACMA.No.77 of 2021 filed by Insurance

Company is dismissed, while MACMA.No.120 of 2021 filed by the

claimants is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated

06.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.567 of 2013 passed by the Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District

Judge, Nizamabad, enhancing the compensation from ETD,J MACMA No.77_120_2021

Rs.8,26,000/- to 10,80,400/- 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 respondent No.2 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 withdraw the said

amount without furnishing any security.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Date:11.06.2025 ds