Telangana High Court

E.Venkatamma vs Elumalai Murugan And 3 Others on 12 September, 2025

                                  1


      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.562 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

and Decree dated 15.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2018 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional

District Judge, Mahabubnagar (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

06.02.2018 at about 12:30 p.m., the deceased who was working as a

lorry driver, went on his work, has unloaded empty bottles of his lorry

at Chitoor and when returning to Hyderabad, in his Eicher Lorry

bearing No.TS-07-UC-9801, and while going to Paturu, H-Wada bus

stop on Chitoor-Kadapa road, another lorry bearing No.TN-52-H-

2175 were going from Pileru towards Chitoor, being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner came to the right side of the

road, and hit the lorry of the deceased in opposite direction, causing

him multiple bleeding injuries, due to which the deceased died on

the spot. They sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 remained ex-parte.

ETD,J MACMA No.562_2021

5. The respondent No.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 lorry did not possess valid driving license and that

their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

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

following issues for consideration:-

"1. Whether the accident occurred on 06.02.2018 at 14:30 hours, opposite to Paturu H.Wada bus stop, on road, Paunthalapattu Mandal, Chittor District was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.TN-52-H-2175 driver and whether it is resulted in causing death of the deceased-Late E.Venkat Reddy?

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

3. To what relief?

7. To prove her case, the petitioners got examined PWs.1 and 2

and Exs.A1 to A7 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

compensation of Rs.10,60,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the

claimant had preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.562_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Venkatesh Gupta, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri T. Sanjay K. Singh, learned counsel

for respondent No.4.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

deceased used to earn Rs.25,000/- towards salary and in addition he

used to get batta whenever he went out on driving and that the

tribunal has taken very low amount of Rs.9,000/- as his earnings per

month and thus, has arrived at a meager amount of compensation.

The Supreme Court has held in 2011 that in case of a driver,

Rs.10,000/- can be taken as monthly income. He further argued that

the tribunal has taken wrong multiplier and also has awarded very

low amount towards consortium. Therefore, he prayed to enhance

the same by following the principles laid down by the Apex Court.

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

submitted that the deceased is stated to be a lorry driver, but the

petitioners failed to prove as to the details of avocation whether the

deceased was driving a heavy goods vehicle or a small lorry.

Therefore, the tribunal has rightly granted the compensation by

assessing the monthly income as Rs.9,000/-. He further argued that

the accident occurred when the vehicles were going in opposite

direction and thus, contributory negligence of the deceased has to

be taken into consideration which was not done byt the tribunal. He ETD,J MACMA No.562_2021

further argued that the petitioners failed to file any proof of age of the

deceased and thus, they cannot dispute the multiplier applied by the

tribunal. He further argued that the decision relied upon by the

appellant counsel pertains to compensation under the Workmen's

Compensation Act. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to

the present case. He further argued that the tribunal has granted

high rate of interest @ 9% per annum and prayed to reduce the

same to 7.5%.

12. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for

consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

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

3. To what relief ?

13. Point No.1:-

a) PW1 is the wife of the deceased, she asserted that her

husband worked as a driver of lorry bearing No.TS-07-UC-9801 and

was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and batta of Rs.150/- per day.

She has filed Ex.A6/driving license of her husband in support of her

case.

b) A perusal of Ex.A6 reveals that it is the driving license issued

to the deceased/Venkat Reddy and was valid from 25.07.2017 till ETD,J MACMA No.562_2021

24.07.2020 for driving transport vehicles. Thus, it is elicited that the

deceased used to work as a driver on transport lorry. It is also an

admitted fact that he met with an accident while he was driving the

lorry bearing No. TS-07-UC-9801.

c) Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the

decisions of Jaya Biswal & Others Vs. Branch Manager, Iffco

Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Another 1,

shows that it was filed under Workmen's Compensation and the

Apex Court has observed that Rs.10,000/- per month will be the

reasonable amount of earnings of the deceased who worked as a

driver.

d) In Jeyarani & Another Vs. The Manager Bajaj Allianz

General; 2 the Apex Court has held that, in case of a mason, no

documentary evidence can be expected. However, taking into

consideration the avocation of the deceased and the year of the

accident being 2013, the monthly income of the deceased could be

reckoned at Rs.9,000/- and has also added future prospects. In the

present case, the deceased is a skilled driver. Therefore, considering

the above cited decisions and considering all the facts and

circumstances, it is opined that since the accident occurred in 2018,

2016 Law Suit (SC) 105

Civil Appeal Nos.4310-4311 of 2023 ETD,J MACMA No.562_2021

an amount of Rs.12,000/- can be taken as income of the deceased

on a reasonable hypothesis.

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

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 3, 10% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged '52'

years, adding 10% towards future prospects i.e., 12,000+1,200

would give Rs.13,200/- per month, which comes to Rs.13,200/- x 12

= Rs.1,58,400/- per annum.

f) Since the claimants are three in number, the deduction that

has to be made is 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards

personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,05,600/-

(Rs.1,58,400 (-) 52,800/-).

g) 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 Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation 4, the deceased being aged '52' years,

the appropriate multiplier is '11'. Therefore, the loss of dependency

is assessed as Rs.11,61,600/- (Rs.1,05,600 x 11).

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.562_2021

h) 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.

i) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 5, 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 and would get Rs.48,400/- each,

hence, the compensation amount under this head would be

Rs.1,45,200/- 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.

j) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation

amounts:-

1. Compensation under the head of loss of Rs.11,61,600/-

dependency

2. Compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.1,45,200/-

to the petitioner

3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-

4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-

                        Total                                   Rs.13,43,100/-





    (2018) 18 SCC 130
                                                                       ETD,J
                                                         MACMA No.562_2021


k)    Thus, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is

calculated as Rs.12,46,300/- while the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.10,60,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled

for enhancement of compensation.

Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.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 the compensation to Rs.12,46,300/- from that of

Rs.10,60,000/- that is awarded by the Tribunal.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:-

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed,

modifying the Order and Decree dated 15.04.2021 in

M.V.O.P.No.100 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar,

enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,60,000/- to 12,46,300/- 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 ETD,J MACMA No.562_2021

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 as per their respective shares as allotted

by the tribunal, without furnishing any security. No costs.