N.Pratibha vs V. Uma Maheswara Rao
2025 Latest Caselaw 3480 Tel

Telangana High Court

N.Pratibha vs V. Uma Maheswara Rao on 27 March, 2025

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.549 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 13.01.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1067 of 2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI 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 petitioners before the Tribunal was that the

deceased was going on Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP-09-BV-0241 as

pillion rider on 06.02.2016 at about 8:30 p.m., while his friend

Pavan was riding the motor bike and while they were proceeding on

NH-65 towards Hyderabad, when they reached near Rudraram

Village, the crime vehicle i.e., Goods Carriage Lorry bearing No.AP-

16-TB-3579 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at

a high speed, came and dashed the motor bike of the deceased

from behind, due to which both the deceased and rider of the

motor bike sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were

shifted to Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad where the

deceased succumbed to injuries on 07.02.2016. It is the case of the

claimants that the deceased was aged about '19' years and was ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021

studying Engineering. They filed a claim petition seeking

Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex-

parte.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 filed counter

affidavit denying the material averments of the petition and they

further contended that the accident has not occurred due to the

rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry and that there is

contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Bajaj Pulsar

and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties

i.e., Insurer and owner of the Bajaj motor bike. They further denied

the age, income and avocation of the deceased.

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

following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle Goods Carriage lorry bearing No.AP-16-TB-3579 causing death of N. Akash?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021

7. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PW1 and 2

and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no

oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was marked.

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

compensation of Rs.13,36,000/-. Aggrieved by the said

compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for

the appellants and Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for

respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that

the orders passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the

Tribunal has wrongly taken the earnings of the deceased to be very

meagre, and that the deceased who was an Engineering Graduate

had bright prospects of earning Rs.25,000/- per month and that

the Tribunal has further deducted 50% of his income and has

awarded a very meagre amount under various heads. Therefore, he

prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

contended that, since the deceased was a Bachelor and a non

earning member, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021

also has rightly deducted 50% of his earnings and therefore,

prayed to confirm the order passed by the Tribunal.

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

following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. If so, to what extent?

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

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) The petitioners case is that the deceased was an Engineering

Student and had bright prospects of earning around Rs.25,000/-

per month. In support of their case, they filed Exs.A7 to A9. Ex.A7

is the SSC Certificate Ex.A8 is the Intermediate Certificate and

Ex.A9 is the Marks Memo issued by Sri Indu College of Engineering

and Technology. The said documents reveals that the deceased was

a student of Engineering at Sri Indu College of Engineering.

b) It is admitted by PW1 that there are backlogs as per the

Marks Memo under Ex.A9 showing that the deceased failed in

certain subjects in First and Second Year of Engineering.

Considering the said aspects, the Tribunal has taken the income of

the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. Since, the deceased had ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021

certain backlogs in First and Second Years on Engineering, it

cannot be held that he was a very bright student. But it is proved

by the petitioners that he was pursuing Engineering at the time of

his death. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, it is held that

Rs.15,000/- can be taken as monthly income of the deceased.

c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1, 40% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged about

19 years, adding 40% towards future prospects would give

Rs.21,000/- per month (Rs.15,000 x (Rs.15,000 x 40%)), which

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

d) The claim petition is filed by the parents and sister of the

deceased. Since the deceased is bachelor at the time of the alleged

accident, 50% deduction need to be made to the income of the

deceased towards personal expenses and this would come up to

Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.2,52,000 x 50%).

e) The Secondary School Certificate filed under Ex.A7 reveals

the age of the deceased as 19 years. Therefore, the age as revealed

under Ex.A7 is taken into consideration. The multiplier should be

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021

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 2. The deceased being aged about 19 years, the

appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the loss of

dependency comes to Rs.22,68,000/- (Rs.1,26,000 x 18).

f) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15,000/- towards

loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded.

Further, it was held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by

10% for every three years.

g) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3, 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 of the

deceased are also entitled to loss of filial consortium. Applying

both the above cited decisions to the present case, the claimant

Nos.1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased would get

Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the

compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,000/- and

further an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021

Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate have to be awarded. Therefore,

it is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.24,00,000/- towards

compensation, while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,36,000/-.

Thus it is held that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of

compensation.

14. Point No.2:-

In view of the findings arrived at Point No.1, it is held that

the order and decree passed by the Tribunal needs to be interfered

with regard to the quantum of compensation. The compensation

granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from 13,36,000/- to

24,00,000/-.

15. Point No.3:-

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated 13.01.2020 in

M.V.O.P.No.1067 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, from Rs.13,36,000/- to Rs.24,00,000/- 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. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021

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.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Date:27.03.2025 ds ETD,J MACMA No.549_2021

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

M.A.C.M.A.NO.549 OF 2021 Date: 27.03.2025.