Telangana High Court

Hulas Chand Soni vs A. Ramalingaiah on 18 September, 2025

                                  1



      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                     M.A.C.M.A.NO.424 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

and Decree dated 27.02.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.700 of 2012 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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

17.09.2011 at about 23:00 hours, in front of DVM College, L.B

Nagar, while the petitioner was going on a Hero Honda bike bearing

No.AP-09-A-0820, he was hit by a Lorry bearing No.AP-29-U-7785

being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from

behind, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous

injuries and died. The claimants sought a compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

ETD,J MACMA No.424_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 Lorry bearing No.AP-29-U-7785 was not having

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 pleaded accident occurred resulting in the death of Rakesh Soni, due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AP-29-U-7785 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the claim amount, if so from whom?

3. To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and

Exs.A1 to A11 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.5,65,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement

of compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.424_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned

counsel for the appellants and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned

Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

tribunal has attributed 20% contributory negligence on the rider of

the two wheeler, but in the result portion, the same is not deducted.

The reason stated by the tribunal in this judgment is that the

deceased was not wearing helmet and hence, he has considered the

negligence of the deceased to be 20%. He further argued that the

non-wearing of helmet does not contribute to the occurrence of the

accident and hence, the same cannot be considered and the finding

of the tribunal is not proper on that regard. He further argued that the

deceased is '23' year old and they have also filed Salary Certificate

under Ex.A9. The tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.5,000/-

per month, which is very low and that the tribunal failed to consider

the future prospects while calculating the compensation. He further

argued that the deceased is a B.Com Graduate, hence prayed to

assess the income of the deceased atleast @ Rs.7,000/- per month

and enhance the compensation.

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

submitted that the tribunal has rightly recorded a finding of ETD,J MACMA No.424_2021

contributory negligence of the deceased as he was not wearing

helmet and that the quantum of compensation has to be deducted

accordingly, which was not done by the tribunal. He further argued

that the income as assessed by the tribunal is very right and that

there is no need to enhance the said amount. He further submitted to

follow the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others. 1

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 claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

granted by the tribunal. Their case is that the deceased was a

B.Com Graduate and thus, had a good potential to earn more

income than that was assessed by the tribunal.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.424_2021

b) The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be

Rs.5,000/- per month. Ex.A9/Salary Certificate filed by the

petitioners, it is issued by Birla Kirana Store, showing that the

deceased was employed in their Kirana Stores from 15.04.2011 and

worked till 16.09.2011 as a part time employee, as a collection boy

and used to look after whole collections and billing and that he was

paid a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month.

c) PW3 is examined in proof of Ex.A9, his evidence reveals that

he is the owner of Birla Kirana Stores and that, he has been running

the said shop since, 2008 at Ramnagar. He has stated that the

deceased worked with him for eight months as Accounts

Clerk/Collection Boy and that they used to pay him by way of cash.

In his cross examination he admitted that he did not produce any

record pertaining to the Birla Kirana Store and has not produced any

salary vouchers. He has admitted that he has not issued any

appointment letter to the deceased. Thus, the tribunal has held that

the earning of the deceased are not proved and hence, has

assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per month.

The petitioners have filed Ex.A10/SSC Certificate showing that he

has secured 1st division in SSC Examination. Though the petitioner

counsel argued that the deceased was a B.Com Graduate, no such

Certificate is filed before the trial Court.

ETD,J MACMA No.424_2021

d) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2, 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. But in the

present case, the accident occurred in the year 2011 and the

deceased is a bright student, aged 21 years. Therefore, on a

reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in

Ramachandrappas's case, the monthly income of the deceased is

assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month.

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

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 3, 40% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged '21'

years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 6,000+2,400 would

give Rs.8,400/- per month, which comes to Rs.8,400/- x 12 =

Rs.1,00,800/- per annum.

f) 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.50,400/- (Rs.1,00,800 x 50%).

(2011) 12 SCC 236

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.424_2021

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 '21' years,

the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore, the loss of dependency

is assessed as Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.50,400 x 18).

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.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.424_2021

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

amounts:-

1. Compensation under the head of loss of Rs.9,07,200/-

dependency

2. Compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.96,800/-

to the petitioner

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

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

                  Total                                     Rs.10,40,300/-



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

calculated as Rs.10,40,300/- while the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.5,65,000/-. 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.10,40,300/- from that of

Rs.5,65,000/- 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 claimants is partly

allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 27.02.2015 in ETD,J MACMA No.424_2021

M.V.O.P.No.700 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad, enhancing the compensation from

Rs.5,65,000/- to 10,40,300/- 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 claimants shall pay the deficit Court

fee. 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.