Telangana High Court
Smt B Bala Bojamma vs Smt. J.Mahaboob Chand on 25 March, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.39 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.07.2017
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - II Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be
referred as 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.1598 of 2014, the appellants,
who are the petitioners/claimants before the learned Tribunal,
preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are as under:
a) The petitioners, who are the parents of Pullaiah
(hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased'), filed claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1
and 2 for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident.
The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the
MGP,J
deceased is that on 09.04.2014 at about 10.30 PM the deceased
was returning home on his motorcycle bearing registration
No.AP 27 AQ 4863 after taking dinner at Komarole. One
Ramesh Babu and another person were also following the
deceased on another motorcycle. When they reached
Edamakallu Village X Road on Komarole to Thaticherla Motu
Village road, one car bearing registration No. AP 03 AL 4500
(hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') came in the
opposite direction on the wrong side of the road being driven by
its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without
following traffic rules and hit the motorcycle of the deceased
while overtaking another vehicle. As a result, the deceased fell
down and sustained bleeding injuries all over the body. While
the deceased was being shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to
injuries.
b) A case in Crime No. 34 of 2014 of Komarole Police
Station, Prakasham District was registered for the offence under
Section 304 - A of the Indian Penal Code.
c) The deceased was alleged to have been aged about 20
years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing motorcycle
mechanic work.
MGP,J
d) The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, the petitioners claimed
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and
2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle
respectively.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition
averments, the respondent No.1 remained exparte and whereas
respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments;
such as petition is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of
necessary parties; the petitioners filed the petition in collusion
with respondent No.1 and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. In order to establish the claim before the learned
Tribunal, the petitioners examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to
A4 were marked on their behalf. On the other hand, no oral
evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, however,
Ex.B1 copy of the insurance policy was marked.
6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order
awarding Rs.7,64,000/- as compensation to the petitioners.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
MGP,J
learned Tribunal, the petitioners preferred the present Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on
record including the grounds of Appeal.
8. It is to be seen that the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company did not prefer any Appeal to set aside the impugned
order. There is no dispute with regard to the subsistence of
Ex.B1 insurance policy at the time of accident. There is also no
dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners
and the deceased. Even there is no dispute with regard to the
manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal by relying on
the evidence of PW1 (father of the deceased) and PW2
(eyewitness to the accident) apart from documentary evidence
under Exs.A1 to A4 i.e., certified copies of FIR, charge sheet,
postmortem examination report and MVI report, answered the
issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. Therefore,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the
learned Tribunal so far as manner of the accident is concerned.
9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that the learned Tribunal awarded meager
MGP,J
compensation by not considering the salary of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/- per month. It is the specific version of the
petitioners that PW1 categorically deposed on oath that the
deceased was mechanic and used to earn a sum of Rs.15,000/-
per annum.
10. Admittedly, a perusal of the impugned order discloses
that except the testimony of PW1, the petitioners have not filed
any material to substantiate that the deceased was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month by working as motorcycle mechanic. In
the absence of any documentary evidence on behalf of the
claimants, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Even the Honourable
Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1 considered
the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month in the
absence of any documentary evidence in support of earning
capacity of the deceased. Thus, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal so far as the
earning capacity of the deceased is concerned.
1 2011- SCC-5-536
MGP,J
11. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the learned Tribunal failed to award the
transportation charges, damage to clothing and other heads
that were claimed by the appellants.
12. It is to be seen that the claimants have not produced any
documentary evidence to substantiate their claim under the
above heads. Hence, the claimants are not entitled for any
amount under the above heads.
13. The learned Tribunal by considering the age of the
deceased as 20 years as per Ex.A2 charge sheet fixed the
relevant multiplier as '18' in view of the decision of the Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2.
Since the deceased is a bachelor, the learned Tribunal deducted
50% towards his personal and living expenses. Further, since
the deceased is aged below 40 years and self employed, the
learned Tribunal considered future prospects at 50%. Thus, the
learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,29,000/- towards
loss of dependency. Apart from this learned Tribunal awarded
an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the learned
2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
Tribunal awarded compensation amount of Rs.7,64,000/- to the
claimants.
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the firm opinion that the claimants failed to establish any
of the grounds to enhance the compensation as awarded by the
learned Tribunal. Thus, there are no infirmities or irregularities
in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. There
are no tenable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order
passed by the learned Tribunal, as such, the present Appeal is
devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 25.03.2025
AS
