Telangana High Court

Nagapuri Sathaiah And 2 Others vs Kodiyatar Mandabhai on 12 September, 2025

                                   1


      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                      M.A.C.M.A.NO.655 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

and Decree dated 01.04.2021 in O.P.No.65 of 2017 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional

District Judge, Karimnagar (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 is that on

20.09.2016 at about 6:00 p.m., while the deceased and his wife

were returning from Kondapur Village to Narsingapur Village on a

Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-15-AF-7438 and on the

way at about 7:00 p.m., when they reached Yellamma Temple in

the outskirts of Thatipalli Village, one Lorry bearing No.GJ-25-U-

7759 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a

high speed, dashed their motor bike due to which both the

deceased and his wife fell down, received fatal injuries and died on

the spot. Thus, the claimants sought a compensation of

Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

ETD,J MACMA No.655_2021

5. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter denying the

averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further

contended that the driver of the crime lorry was not having valid

driving license as on the date of the accident and that their

Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further

contented that the negligence of the deceased-rider of the motor

bike contributed to the accident.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the accident had occurred on account of the use of the offending vehicle Lorry bearing No.GJ-25-U-7759 by respondent No.1?

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

3. To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3

and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no

oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R1 was marked.

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

compensation of Rs.23,14,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the

present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement

of compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.655_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri A.V.K.S Prasad, lerned counsel

for the appellants and Sri Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for

the respondent No.4.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

parents are the claimants. He further argued that the Tribunal has

not awarded consortium and hence, prayed to award the same.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has

submitted that the deceased is a Surveyor and the tribunal was

right in assessing the income of Rs.12,000/- and that there is no

need to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

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

following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation.

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:-

a) PW1 asserted that the deceased used to work as Surveyour

in Oman, United Arab Emirates and used to earn Rs.120/- Riyals

which is equal to Rs.20,000/- per month in Indian Currency. The

tribunal failed to consider the same.

ETD,J MACMA No.655_2021

b) The Tribunal has held that the income of the deceased is

proved, it has taken wrongly the income of the deceased to be

Rs.12,000/- per month. In support of their case, the petitioners

have filed the original passport of the deceased under Ex.P7 which

discloses that he is issued resident card by Sultan Oman and that

it is to expire on 29.04.2017. The account statement under Ex.P9

discloses that it pertains to PW1, wherein the deposits are made

into his account and it is the contention of the petitioner that the

NEFT transfers are made by his son from Oman. The remittance

receipts are filed under Ex.P10 discloses that the deceased

remitted an amount of Rs.280/- riyals to his father/Nagapuri

Sathiah and they have also produced the encashment certificate of

Weizmann Forex Limited under Ex.P11 which shows the

conversion of Riyals to Rupees, it is elicited from the same that in

exchange of 20 Riyals, he could collect an amount of Rs.3,012/-.

Though the petitioner counsel has stated that the conversion rate

is Rs.160/- per Riyal, a perusal of encashment certificate reveals

that Rs.150/- would be the Indian Currency for one Dirham. Then

they have also filed eight E-ticket receipts under Ex.P12 to prove

that the deceased used to travel from Oman to India and that the

return ticket was booked on 15.08.2016 from Delhi to Oman.

Thus, the petitioners could place it on record that the deceased

was employed at Oman and used to earn Rs.150/- Riyal per ETD,J MACMA No.655_2021

month. Thus, he was employed abroad and used to send amount

to his parents.

c) The contention of the petitioners is that he used to earn

Rs.120 Riyal per month. Thus, they contended that he used to

earn around Rs.20,000/- per month in terms of Indian Currency.

The salary certificate is not produced. Though they could prove

that the deceased used to work abroad and used to send amounts

every now and then, the monthly earnings are not disclosed.

Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, the tribunal has assessed

the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- which appears to be

justified.

d) The deceased was aged '27' years as per Post Mortem

Examination Report, but the tribunal has considered all the

aspects into consideration as per the guidelines laid down in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &

Others 1,that is 40% of the future prospects are added and has

also given 1/3rd deduction as number of dependents are only two

and taken appropriate multiplier as '17'. However, it is observed

that the tribunal has failed to consider the loss of consortium.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.655_2021

e) 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.

f) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 2, 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 would get Rs.48,400/- each

towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount

under this head would be Rs.96,800/- 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.

g) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,14,800/-, while, this Court

arrived at a compensation of Rs.24,11,600/- and hence, it is held

that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation.

Thus, Point No. 2 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, it is held

that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with

regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.655_2021

the compensation to Rs.24,11,600/- from that of Rs.23,14,800/-

i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.4:

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the

Order and Decree dated 01.04.2021 in O.P.No.66 of 2017 passed

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.23,14,800/- to Rs.24,11,600/- 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 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 claimants are entitled to withdraw

the said amount without furnishing any security.