Telangana High Court

Kum.A.Varsha vs A. Padma on 12 June, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.661 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants/petitioners filed the present appeal

under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by

the II Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

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

M.V.O.P.No.230 of 2014, dated 21.01.2020, seeking compensation of

Rs. 26,60,000/- on account of the death of A.Balreddy (father of

petitioners), (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in an accident

that occurred on 26.05.2012.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they

are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier

filed M.V.O.P.No.229 of 2014 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988

seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the

accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the

driver of the car. It is contended that on 26.05.2012, at about 11:00 PM

the deceased was slowly driving the motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-R-

2831 from Dammaiguda to Champapet along with her children

NNR,J

(petitioners) and when they reached near ECIL Ground, suddenly a Car

bearing No.AP-29-BD-909 came in high speed in rash and negligent

manner from opposite direction and dashed the petitioners' motor cycle.

As a result, the deceased, her wife who was pillion rider and petitioners

fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased

and others were shifted to Tulasi Hospital for treatment. While

undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 27.05.2012. The Police

registered a case in Crime No.360 of 2012 under Section 304-A of IPC

against the driver of offending vehicle. The appellants/claimants

claimed an amount of Rs.26,60,000/- as compensation for the death of

the deceased under various heads.

4. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal, was that

petitioners lost their parent due to the accident and their future has

become dark, and the petitioners has to depend on others for their day

to day basic needs and prayed the Tribunal to award just compensation.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

Respondent No.2 - filed counter contended that he sold the car bearing

No.AP-29-BD-909 to Harsha Auto Mall Private Limited to that extent,

the said authorities issued hand over letter, dated 12.2.2012 in favour

of him and in turn sold the said vehicle in favour of respondent No.1

NNR,J

and registered in her name and delivery receipt dated 09.04.2012, vide

ate pass receipt No.14992, dated 09.04.2012. The respondent No.1 has

become owner of said vehicle and submits that respondent No.2 is no

way concerned with the said offending car. Respondent No.3 - Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, also file counter-

affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including

the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income

of the deceased and submitted that driver of the offending car did not

have valid and subsisting driving licence to drive the offending vehicle

and the said offending vehicle was not road worthy to ply and further

contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads

as under:

i) Whether A.Balreddy died in the accident took place due to the rash ad negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP-29-BD-909.?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, from whom and what quantum of amount?

iii) To what relief?

NNR,J

7. To prove the petitioners' case, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and

marked Exs.A1 to A8. RW1 was examined on behalf of the respondents,

and Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked.

8. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed

by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in

part and granted compensation of Rs.10,55,000/- along with interest @

7.5% per annum.

9. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount

awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the

ground that the deceased was aged about 39 years at the date of

accident and was working an Employee in M/s.Global Elecronics,

Narayanguda and was earning Rs.13,000/- per month and was

contribution the same to the welfare of the family, but the learned

Tribunal did not consider the above averments and fixed the income of

the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and the learned Tribunal has not

awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that there

is no dispute with regard to accident, death of the deceased and the

injuries sustained by the deceased. In cross examination, PW1 to PW3

NNR,J

were examined. Exhibits A.1 to A.8 were marked on behalf of

petitioners. Learned counsel further contended that PW2 who is an eye

witness to the accident narrated the said accident. The learned Tribunal

having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent

driving of Car, but without considering the evidence in proper manner

with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed

the deceased's income at Rs.6,000/- per month and also not awarded

just compensation under the various head as per as per the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others 1.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the

accident was occurred on 26.05.2012 and the deceased was admitted in

the hospital from 26.05.2012 till her death i.e., 27.05.2012 and the

petitioners had incurred medical bills of Rs.17,000/-, which was

marked as Ex.A8.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after

considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal

has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

1 2017 ACJ 2700

NNR,J

13. None appear for respondent No.1 & 2.

14. Heard Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants/petitioners and Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for

the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Perused the material on

record.

15. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against

the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute

regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident.

The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that:

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?

Point No.1:

16. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on

26.05.2012 alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of

the car driver and the petitioners lost their beloved father (deceased) in

an unfortunate accident. The petitioners claim that the deceased was an

Employee in M/s.Global Electronics, Narayanguda and was getting

salary Rs.13,000/- per month, however there is no other documentary

prove, such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the

deceased was earning Rs.13,000/- per month as claimed by the

NNR,J

petitioners/claimants. But looking at the records available and the

averments made by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is

evident that was aged about 39 years who was hale and health and

would earn more than the monthly income which the learned Tribunal

has granted. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 2, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the

income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the

ground realities by the Courts, hence the compensation granted by the

learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notional income of the

deceased @ Rs.6,000/- per month looked to be meager.

17. Hence considering the ground realities and deceased was aged

about 39 years who was hale and health at the time of accident, hence

following the law laid down judgment passed in Latha Wadhwa's case

(cited supra), this Court is of the opinion that the deceased would

obviously earn Rs.300/- per day by working in any Private Company,

hence accordingly, the deceased income can be notionally taken as

Rs.9,000/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others 3 and considering the age of the deceased as 39 years,

2001(8) SCC 197

2017 ACJ 2700

NNR,J

additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects

to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of

the deceased would come to Rs.12,600/- (Rs 9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-). The

annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,200/-

(Rs.12,600/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards

the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are two in

number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.1,00,800/-

(Rs.1,51,200/- (-) Rs.50,400/-).

18. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4, and

considering the age of the deceased as 39 years, the appropriate

multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '15'. Thus, the total loss

of dependency would come to Rs.15,12,000/- (1,00,800/- x 15).

19. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/-

(Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-

(Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay

Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

20. Appellant No.1 and 2 are children of the deceased, the appellant

No.1 & 2 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/-

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

NNR,J

(Rs.48,400/- x2) under the head of 'loss of parental consortium', as per

Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis

Chuhru Ram 5.

21. The petitioners incurred medical bills of Rs.17,000/-, which was

marked as Ex.A8, which was not disputed, hence the said amount is

also awarded to the petitioners.

22. In Sarla Verma's case (cited above), the Hon'ble Apex Court,

while elaborating the concept of 'just compensation' observed as under:

"Post compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying, the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."

23. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited

decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to

enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above

and given in the table for easy reference

2018 (18) SCC 130

NNR,J

24. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants

would be entitled to as follows:
i)     Annual Income (of the deceased)
       Rs.9,000/- X 12   =   Rs.1,08,000/-

ii)     Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
        Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) =
        Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/-      =    Rs.1,51,200/-
iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,51,200/- (-) Rs.50,400/- = Rs.1,00,800/-

iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.1,00,800/- x 15 = Rs.15,12,000/-

v) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + Parental Consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.96,800 = Rs.1,33,100/-
vi)    Medical Bills                                             Rs.17,000/-

       Total                                                  Rs.16,62,100/-
25. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs.16,62,100/- as against the awarded amount of

Rs.10,50,000/- by the learned Tribunal.

26. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal

has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7.5 % per annum and the

same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the

NNR,J

opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5 %

on the enhanced amount.

27. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation

of Rs.16,45,100/- Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part,

enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10,50,200/- to Rs.16,45,100/-

with interest at the rate @ 7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the

date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed

to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving

due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of

two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The

compensation amount shall be apportioned among the

appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the

learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

28. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 12.06.2025 SHA