Telangana High Court

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Thonukunoori Padma on 18 June, 2025

                                  1



      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

               M.A.C.M.A.Nos.185 & 252 OF 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.185 of 2021 is filed by the claimants, seeking

enhancement of compensation, while M.A.C.M.A.No.252 of 2021 is

filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and

Decree dated 11.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1603 of 2014 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

29.05.2014 at about 10:00 p.m., the deceased was proceeding as

the owner-cum-driver of an auto trolley bearing No.AP-24-TC-4637

with a load of lemon from Sunkenapally to Hyderabad and when he

reached near L.B Nagar on NH.No.65, the auto went and hit the

right rear portion of a stationed Lorry bearing No.AP-16-TV-491,

due to which the auto trolley was completely damaged and the

deceased was stuck in the damaged auto and succumbed to

injuries. The claimants i.e., the wife, children and sisters of the

deceased filed a claim petition before the trial Court claiming a

compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021

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

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

averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. Further, they

contended that there was contributory negligence on part of the

deceased in not observing the stationed lorry which was parked at

the extreme left side of the road and that there was no negligence

of the driver of the lorry, which is insured with them.

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

following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred on 29.05.2014 at about 10:00 p.m., was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry bearing No.Ap-16-TV- 491 and whether the deceased died in the said accident?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what quantum, if so what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4

and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the respondents

RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

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

compensation of Rs.23,74,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021

claimants have preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.185 of 2021 while the

Insurance Company has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.252 of 2021.

9. Heard the submission of Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel

for the appellants and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel

for respondent No.2.

10. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the

Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be

Rs.15,000/-, while the claimants stated it to be Rs.20,000/-. He

submitted that the deceased was doing Transport Business, he was

the owner of two auto trolleys and was running the same for

supplying goods and thus, he used to earn not less than

Rs.20,000/- per month. He further submitted that under the head

of loss of consortium, the Tribunal did not award compensation to

all the claimants, but has awarded only to the wife. He therefore,

prayed to award the said amounts and enhance the compensation.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has argued that there was contributory negligence on

part of the deceased in not observing the stationed lorry and that

he might have been driving at a high speed which resulted in a

ghastly accident. He therefore, prayed to attribute some amount of

contributory negligence on part of the deceased. He further argued

that the income was assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.15,000/-

ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021

which is on the higher side and has prayed to reduce the

compensation.

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

following points for determination:

1. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the deceased in the occurrence of accident resulting in his death?

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

3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) A perusal of the charge sheet shows that the accident

occurred due to the negligent parking of the lorry without any

parking lights. The lorry was negligently parked on the NH.No.65

road near V.V.V.R Hotel without putting on the parking lights or

any signals and indicators. Thus, in the darkness, the deceased

who was going on the auto trolley could not see the lorry and

therefore, he dashed the lorry from rear side, as a result of which

he got stuck in the damaged auto and died. One Sukka Swamy

was examined as PW3 and he is cited as an eye witness in the

charge sheet. A perusal of his evidence reveals that he has

witnessed the accident. It is elicited through him that he is a

Photographer by profession and used to go for outdoor

photography on all occasions and that while he was proceeding to ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021

Hyderabad, he saw the auto of the deceased hitting against the

lorry and so he stopped there and took the photographs. It is

elicited through his cross examination that he has shifted the

deceased to the hospital. So based on the evidence of PW3 coupled

with the charge sheet/Ex.A6, it is held that the accident occurred

as the lorry was negligently parked without any parking lights on

National Highway. Therefore, it is held that there is no contributory

negligence of the deceased.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

a) It is argued by the claimants counsel that the claimants

were not awarded amounts under the loss of consortium and the

other conventional heads as per the guidelines laid down in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &

Others 1. The claimants have asserted that the petitioner used to

earn Rs.20,000/- per month and the Tribunal has assessed the

income as Rs.15,000/- per month which appears to be very

reasonable, because PW1 has filed the attested copies of RC's of

the auto trolleys which stand in the name of the deceased. Thus, it

is elicited that he used to run the auto trolley for his livelihood and

Rs.15,000/- per month is found to be appropriate. Based on that

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021

under all the heads, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the

amounts. But it is brought to the notice of this Court by the

respondents Counsel that petitioner Nos.6 and 7 are the married

sisters of the deceased, who cannot be held to be the dependents.

Considering the said fact, the deduction should be made by taking

into consideration that the claimants were only five in number,

wherein the deduction should be 1/4th and not 1/5th as done by

the Tribunal.

b) Therefore, the compensation is assessed by taking the said

factor into consideration.

c) The monthly income of the deceased is assessed supra as

Rs.15,000/-. 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 35 years, adding 40% towards future prospects

would give Rs.21,000/- (Rs.15,000/-x 40/100 = 6000/-) per

month, which comes to Rs.21,000/- x 12 = Rs.2,52,000/- per

annum.

d) The number of claimants herein are five and therefore, 1/4th

deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021

expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,89,000/- (Rs.2,52,000/-

(-) Rs.63,000/-).

e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A5

reveals the age of the deceased as 35 years. No other proof is filed

in this regard. Therefore, the age as revealed under Ex.A5 is taken

into consideration. 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. The deceased

being aged 35 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '16'.

Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.30,24,000/-.

f) 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.

g) 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 No.1 to 5 would get Rs.48,400/-

each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021

under this head would be Rs.2,42,000/- 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.

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

compensation amounts:-

1. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Rs.30,24,000/-

2. Compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.2,42,000/-

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

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

                     Total                                                 Rs.33,02,300/-




i)    Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are

entitled is calculated as Rs.33,02,300/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.23,74,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners

are entitled for enhancement of compensation.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:-

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1 and 2, it is held

that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be

modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. The

claimants are entitled for Rs.33,02,300/- towards just

compensation, while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,74,000/-.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.185 & 252_2021

16. Point No.4:-

In the result, MACMA.No.252 of 2021 filed by the Insurance

Company is dismissed and MACMA.No.185 of 2021 filed by the

claimants is allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated

11.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1603 of 2014 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from 23,74,000/-

to 33,02,300/- 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 appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee.

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 appellants are entitled

to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as

per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. The

judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment of

deficit Court fee by the appellants. No costs.