Telangana High Court

Annapurna vs Mohd Abdul Mateen on 1 May, 2025

                                 1



      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.746 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order

and Decree dated 31.08.2021 in O.P.No.1578 of 2014 passed by

the MACT-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at

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 claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that

on 06.01.2014, deceased A.Venkata Ramarao started from Sarathi

Studios and was going towards Ameerpet by walk. At about 15.30

hours, auto bearing No.AP-09-TB-1544 driven by its driver in a

rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed to the

deceased, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous head

injury and serious injuries all over the body and was shifted Axon

Hospital, S.R.Nagar for treatment. Deceased succumbed to

injuries while undergoing treatment. The case of the petitioners is

that at the time of accident, deceased was hale and healthy and

was aged 49 years and earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working

as a Manager in Classic Construction. They made a claim of

Rs.25,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.746_2021

5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the issuance of

policy and validity as on the date of the alleged accident and

further denied all the averments in the petition with regard to the

age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is also contended

that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased

but not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

auto.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal

has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the deceased A.Venkata Ramarao S/o Late AVL Narasimha Rao died on 06.01.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP-

09-TB-1544?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, petitioner No.1 herself got

examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined

and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.

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

compensation of Rs.9,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

ETD,J MACMA No.746_2021

9. Heard the submission of Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learned

counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel

for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has

awarded meager compensation to the petitioners. He further

argued that the Tribunal has taken the earnings of the deceased as

Rs.6,000/- per month which is very low, that the deceased was

working as a Manager in a construction company and earning

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

needs to be awarded to all the petitioners which the Tribunal has

not awarded and therefore prayed to set aside the order and decree

passed by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

has submitted that there is no error in the orders passed by the

Tribunal and also contended that the petitioners are not entitled to

any other amounts and further prayed to dismiss the appeal.

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

following points for determination:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

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

3. To what relief?

ETD,J MACMA No.746_2021

13. POINT NO.1:

a) Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation granted by the Tribunal. It is their case that the

deceased was aged 49 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per

month by working as Manager in a construction company. P.W.1

asserted the same in her evidence but no other evidence was

placed on record with regard to the earnings of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Maheshwari and Ors. v. Ramachandran

and Ors." 1. In the said case, the deceased used to run a vegetable

shop and had also been selling beverages and he was 44 years old,

when he, unfortunately, met with an accident in the year 2015, the

Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.8,000/- per month but the

Hon'ble Apex Court having regard to the nature of business and

the fact that he was supporting a family of four members, has held

that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.15,000/- per

month.

b) In the present case, the deceased was supporting his family

of three members and he is stated to have been working as

Manager in a construction company, aged 44 years but in Ex.A.2/

certified copy of inquest report, it is mentioned that the deceased

was doing real estate. Considering the said facts and on a

2023 (ACJ) 1210 ETD,J MACMA No.746_2021

reasonable hypothesis an amount of Rs.8,000/- can be safely

taken as monthly income of the deceased.

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

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 25% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 44

years as per P.M.E report, adding 25% towards future prospects

would give Rs.10,000/- (Rs.8,000/-x 25/100 = 2,000/-) per

month, which comes to Rs.10,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- per

annum.

d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore,

1/3rd deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

expenses and this would come up to Rs.80,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- (-)

Rs.40,000/-).

e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A.3

reveals the age of the deceased as 44 years. 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 44 years, the appropriate

multiplier to be applied is '14'. Therefore, the loss of dependency

comes upto Rs.11,20,000/- (Rs.80,000/- X 14 = Rs.11,20,000/-).

2 AIR 2017 SCC 5157

3 2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.746_2021

f) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.40,000/- towards loss

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

towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It was further 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 4, the Apex Court has elaborately

discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has

further held that the parents and children of the deceased are also

entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the

claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium,

hence, the compensation amount under this head would be

Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- X 3 = Rs.1,45,200/-). Claimants are

also entitled for compensation under 'conventional heads' as laid

down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi, i.e., Rs.18,150/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.18,150/-

towards funeral charges. Hence, they are entitled to Rs.36,300/-

under the 'Conventional heads'. Therefore, claimants are entitled

for the compensation in the following terms:

1. Loss of dependency Rs. 11,20,000/-

2. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-

3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.746_2021

4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,45,200/-

                  TOTAL                         Rs. 13,01,500/-



h)    Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

enhanced from Rs.9,30,000/- to that of Rs.13,01,500/- which

would be justified in the present case. Point No.1 is answered

accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:

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

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

accordingly compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of

Rs.9,30,000/- is enhanced to Rs.13,01,500/-.

15. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the MACMA filed by the petitioners is partly

allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 31.08.2021 in

O.P.No.1578 of 2014 passed by the MACT-cum-XXV Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.9,30,000/- to Rs.13,01,500/- 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. Respondent

No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued

interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a ETD,J MACMA No.746_2021

copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already

deposited. On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to

withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per

their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs.