Telangana High Court
Smt. Nazima Shaheen vs Gayara Bikshapati on 21 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1410 OF 2017
AND
M.A.C.M.A.No.2360 OF 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1410 of 2017 filed by the claim
petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation and
M.A.C.M.A.No.2360 of 2017 filed by respondent No.2/Insurance
Company challenging the order of the Tribunal, both are directed
against the very same order dated 22.09.2016 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.1286 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal -cum- XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who
are the wife and children of deceased -Mohd.Ghouse, filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a
motor vehicle accident that took place on 13.02.2012 at about
18.00 hours. As stated by the petitioners, on 13.02.2012 at about
18.00 hours, when the deceased was going on his motorcycle and
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1410 and 2360 of 2017
while he was crossing the road at Champapet, Santoshnagar, one
Pulsar bike bearing No.AP-13-AA-9569, which was driven by its
rider in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the
motorcycle of the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased
fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Apollo
Hospital for treatment and the Doctors declared him as dead.
4. Police of Kanchanbagh Police Station registered a case in
Crime No.40 of 2012 under Section 304-A IPC, conducted
investigation and filed charge sheet against the rider of the bike.
5. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged 48
years and used to earn Rs.2,40,000/- per annum by doing
transport business and used to contribute the same for
maintenance of their family. Due to untimely death of the
deceased, they lost their bread winner and were put to mental
shock and agony and hardship. Hence filed claim petition seeking
compensation against the respondents, who are the owner and
insurer of Pulsar bike bearing No.AP-13-AA-9569.
6. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 did not file his
counter.
7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1410 and 2360 of 2017
that the driver of crime bike do not possess valid driving license to
drive the vehicle and that they have not issued any policy in favour
of respondent No.1 in respect of Pulsar bike and that the claim of
compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to
dismiss the claim against it.
8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned
Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the accident occurred on 13.02.2012 due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
Pulsar bike bearing No.AP-13-AA-9569 causing
death of deceased?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation. If so, to what amount and from
whom?
(iii) To what relief?
9. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and
Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of respondent
No.2/Insurance company, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1/Copy of
insurance policy was marked.
10. After considering the entire evidence available on record, the
learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding
compensation of Rs.20,88,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6%
per annum till the date of payment payable by both the
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1410 and 2360 of 2017
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same,
the present appeals came to be filed by the claimants and
Insurance Company respectively.
11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri T.Viswarupa Chary,
learned counsel for appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1410 of 2017 and
Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for respondent/Insurance
Company who appeared through virtual mode. Perused the entire
record including grounds of Appeal in both cases.
12. The contention made by the learned counsel for
appellants/claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1410 of 2017 is that the
learned Tribunal had not granted just compensation on counts of
loss of love and affection to the children of the deceased and
therefore requested to allow the appeal by enhancing the
compensation amount.
13. On the other hand, the contentions of the learned Counsel
for respondent/Insurance Company are that the Tribunal failed to
see that the accident happened due to the negligence on part of
deceased himself and also failed to make the owner and insurer of
motorcycle as proper and necessary parties to the petition; failed to
see that the driver of insured vehicle do not possess driving license
at the time of accident and also erred in fixing the income of the
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1410 and 2360 of 2017
deceased without any basis and therefore requested to set-aside
the order of the Tribunal.
14. Now the points that emerges for determination are,
1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal
suffers from any irregularity?
2. Whether the appellants/claim petitioners are entitled
for enhancement of compensation?
POINTS:-
15. Since one of the disputes raised by the learned counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.2360 of 2017 is
that the deceased himself is responsible for causing the accident
and that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground
of non-joinder of owner and insurer of motorcycle as proper and
necessary parties, this Court is inclined to delve into the said
aspect for arriving at a correct conclusion.
16. PW2, an eye witness to the incident, deposed in his evidence
that on 13.02.2012 at about 18.00 hours, when the deceased was
going on his bike near Champapet, one motorcycle bearing No.AP-
13-AA-9569, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed the deceased from backside due to which he sustained
serious injuries and fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to
Apollo Hospital for treatment and the doctors declared him as
dead. Further, a perusal of charge sheet also discloses that the
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1410 and 2360 of 2017
death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Pulsar bike, who lost control over his vehicle and dashed
the boxer bike of the deceased resulting in the alleged accident.
Hence, the contention of learned counsel for respondent
/Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal failed to make the
owner and insurer of motorcycle of the deceased as proper and
necessary parties, is unsustainable.
17. The other contention is with regard to quantum of
compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant /Insurance
Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.2360 of 2017 contended that the
learned Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased without
any basis.
18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW3-
Income Tax officer, who admitted in his evidence that the deceased
was having transport business and that Exs.A7 to A9 are the
Income Tax returns filed by the deceased for the assessment years
2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. As the accident took place on
13.02.2012, the learned Tribunal considering the Income tax
returns filed for Assessment year 2010-11, which is marked as
Ex.A7, took the income of the deceased as Rs.2,40,000/- per
annum, added 15% towards future prospects. This Court,
considering the occupation of the deceased as lorry transport
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1410 and 2360 of 2017
business and not a permanent job, is inclined to interfere with the
finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby add 10% instead of 15%
towards future prospects. Upon addition of the same, the future
loss of earnings come to Rs.2,64,000/-. The learned Tribunal
deducted 1/4th income towards personal expenses though the
number of dependents are three in number. This Court, by relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Sarla
Verma V.Delhi Transport Corporation 1, hereby deduct 1/3rd towards
personal expenses instead of 1/4th . Upon deduction of the same,
the loss of future earnings comes to Rs.1,76,000/-. Upon
application of multiplier '9' for the deceased being 58 years old,
the total loss of earnings on account of the death of the deceased
comes to Rs.15,84,000/-.
19. A perusal of impugned judgment shows that the learned
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. This Court finds the said
amounts to be on higher side and hereby reduce the same to
77,000/- by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi &
others (2017 ACJ 2700). Hence, the claimants are entitled for a
total compensation of Rs.16,61,000/-
(2009) 6 SCC 121
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.1410 and 2360 of 2017
20. So far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded
two different rates of interest on the compensation amount. This
Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2 , hereby grant
proportionate rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1410 of 2017 is dismissed and
M.A.C.M.A.No.2360 of 2017 is partly-allowed by reducing the
compensation amount along with interest awarded by the Tribunal
from Rs.20,88,000/- to Rs.16,61,000/- which shall carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization payable by respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.
There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.21.03.2025
ysk
2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
