Telangana High Court
Smt. T. Puthra Laxmi vs Rank Silicon And Industries Private ... on 15 September, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.773 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 26.10.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2857 of 2016 passed
by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI
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 is that on
05.07.2016 the deceased was going along with his friends towards
Shamirpet from Jagadgirigutta via Medchal Check post in a Swift
Desire Car bearing No.TS-07-UB-6935. At about 3:25 a.m., when
they reached near Kistapur Electrical Sub-station, a Goods Carriage
(Tipper) bearing No.AP-28-TD-7453 being driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner at a high speed going ahead of the car ,
suddenly applied breaks, due to which the car ran into the goods
carriage vehicle and the deceased sustained fatal injuries on head
and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex-parte.
ETD,J
MACMA No.773_2021
5. The respondent No.2 has 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 Tipper did not possess valid driving license as on
the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any
compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the
following issues for trial:-
"1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the Goods Carriage (Tipper) bearing No.AP-28-TD-7453?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to
what extent and from whom?
3. To what relief?"
7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PW1 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 a
compensation of Rs.9,37,200/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the
present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement
of compensation.
ETD,J
MACMA No.773_2021
9. Heard the submissions of Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Srinivasaw Rao Vutla,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective
and that the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be
very low as Rs.6,000/- per month and has arrived at a meager
amount of compensation. He further argued that the deceased was a
driver and the driving license is also filed to prove the avocation, but
still the tribunal has not considered the same. He further prayed to
enhance the rate of interest granted by the tribunal @ 6% to that of
7.5% per annum.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has
submitted that except filing Ex.A7/driving license, no other evidence
is lead by the petitioners to prove that the deceased was working as
a driver. He further argued that the tribunal has assessed the
monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- and that it does
not need any further enhancement. He has further contended that
the deceased was a bachelor and thus 50% deduction has to be
made, while computing the compensation.
ETD,J
MACMA No.773_2021
12. In view of the above contentions, the points that arise for
consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-
1. Whether the claimants are 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) The contention of the claimants is that the deceased used to
work as a driver and was earning a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month
and Rs.200/- as Batta per day.
b) PW1/T. Puthra Laxmi is the mother of the deceased and
stated that he studied up to Intermediate 1st year and that he used to
work as a driver and used to earn Rs.18,000/- per month. They filed
Ex.A7/driving license of the deceased. A perusal of the same reveals
that the deceased-Veerababu was holding a driving license, it was
issued on 02.06.2016. It is a fact asserted by PW1 that the deceased
was driving the Car bearing No. TS-07-UB-6935 at the time of
accident. The crime record also shows that the deceased was
driving the car at the time of accident. The deceased was aged 22
years as per the Post Mortem Examination Report. His driving
license is filed under Ex.A7, it shows the date of issuance, but does
not show the details of validity.
ETD,J
MACMA No.773_2021
c) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Apex Court has held
that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer,
Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income, in the said
case, the accident occurred in the year 2004. But, in the present
case, the accident occurred in the year 2016. The deceased is
shown to be a driver. Based on the evidence on record, on a
reasonable hypothesis, the income of the petitioner is assessed as
Rs.8,000/- per month.
d) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 40% of the income needs to
be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged '22'
years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 8000+3200 would
give Rs.11,200/- per month, which comes to Rs.11,200/- x 12 =
Rs.1,34,400/- per annum.
e) Since the deceased was a 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.67,200/- (Rs.1,34,400 x 50%).
(2011) 12 SCC 236
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
ETD,J
MACMA No.773_2021
f) 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 3, the deceased being aged '22' years,
the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency
is assessed as Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.67,200 x 18).
g) 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.
h) 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 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, 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.
2009 (6) SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.773_2021
i) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation
amounts:-
1. Compensation under the head of loss of Rs.12,09,600/-
dependency
2. Compensation towards loss of consortium to Rs.96,800/-
the petitioner
3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
Total Rs.13,42,700/-
j) Thus, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is
calculated as Rs.13,42,700/- while the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.9,37,200/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled
for enhancement of compensation.
Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.2:-
a) In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, 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.13,42,700/- from that of Rs.9,37,200/- that is
awarded by the Tribunal.
b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 6% on the
quantum of compensation.
ETD,J
MACMA No.773_2021
c) In T. Vijaya lakshmi Vs. U. Dayamanai 5, a Bench of this High
Court has increased the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal to
that of 6% to 7.5% .
d) In Pathulothu Balu Vs. Devender Singh Yadav 6, a Bench of
this High Court has increased the rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal to that of 6% to 7.5%.
e) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Another 7;
a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5%
per annum on the amount of compensation.
f) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath
Suresh and Others 8 and National Insurance Company Limited
Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 9; also interest @ 7.5%
per annum was granted on the amount of compensation
g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court
has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation
that is awarded in such cases.
h) Hence, the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate
of interest granted by the Tribunal is increased to that of 7.5%.
2022 SCC Online TS 606
2023 SCC Online TS 1095
2023 SCC Online TS 1170
ETD,J
MACMA No.773_2021
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. Point No.3:-
In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimants is partly
allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 26.10.2021 in
M.V.O.P.No.2857 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad, by enhancing the compensation from
Rs.9,37,200/- to Rs.12,09,600/-. The rate of interest is increased
from 6% to 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till
realization. However, the interest for the period of delay 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 appellants are entitled to
withdraw the said amount as per their respective shares as allotted
by the Tribunal, without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 15.09.2025
ds
