Telangana High Court

Kum.A.Varsha And Another vs A. Padma And 2 Others on 12 June, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.647 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.229 of 2014, dated 21.01.2020, seeking compensation of

Rs. 24,00,000/- on account of the death of A.Jyothi (mother 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 going slowly on her husband's motor cycle bearing

No.AP-28-R-2831 from Dammaiguda to Champapet along with her

children (petitioners) as pillion rider and when they reached ear 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

deceased motor cycle. As a result, the deceased, her husband 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 29.05.2012. 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.24,00,000/- 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 Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-

parte. Respondent No.3 - Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company

Limited, filed 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.Jyothi 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?

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

marked Exs.A1 to A7. 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.12,50,200/- 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 33 years at the date of

accident and was working as Beautician and earning Rs.10,000/- per

month and was contributing 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

were examined. Exhibits A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of petitioner.

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 for three days from 26.05.2012 till her death i.e.,

29.05.2012 and the petitioners had incurred medical bills of

Rs.1,45,000/-, which proved by Ex.A7.

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.

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

1 2017 ACJ 2700

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 mother (deceased) in

an unfortunate accident. The petitioner claim that the deceased was

beautician and was getting salary Rs.10,000/- per month, however there

is no other documentary prove the same, such as relevant account

books or bank entries to show that the deceased was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioners/claimants. But

looking at the records available, the averments and submissions made

by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is evident that was

aged about 33 years who was hale and healthy 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 by the Courts considering the

ground realities, 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 33 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.250/- per day by doing beautician work or any odd

job accordingly, the deceased income can be notionally taken as

Rs.7,500/- 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 33 years,

2 2001(8) SCC 197 3 2017 ACJ 2700

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.10,500/- (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3,000/-). The

annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,26,000/-

(Rs.10,500/- 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.84,000/-

(Rs.1,26,000/- (-) Rs.42,000/-).

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 33 years, the appropriate

multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '16'. Thus, the total loss

of dependency would come to Rs.13,44,000/- (84,000/- x 16).

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).

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

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/-

(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.1,45,000/-, which was

marked as Ex.A7, 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

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

would be entitled to as follows:

i)     Annual Income (of the deceased)
       Rs.7,500/- X 12   =   Rs.90,000/-

ii)     Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
        Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) =
        Rs.90,000/- + Rs.36,000/-      =       Rs.1,26,000/-

iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,26,000/- (-) Rs.42,000/- = Rs.84,000/-

iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.84,000/- x 16 = Rs.13,44,000/-

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

vi)    Medical Bills                                            Rs.1,45,000/-

       Total                                                   Rs.16,22,100/-

25. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs.16,22,100/- as against the awarded amount of

Rs.12,50,200/- 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

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.16,22,100/- Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part,

enhancing the compensation from Rs. 12,50,200/- to

Rs. Rs.16,22,100/- with interest at the rate @ 7.5 % p.a. on the