Smt. Kushaji Surekha vs M/S. Sicgil Industrialgases Limited.
2025 Latest Caselaw 5584 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Kushaji Surekha vs M/S. Sicgil Industrialgases Limited. on 19 September, 2025

                                   1



      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                     M.A.C.M.A.NO.605 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

and Decree dated 18.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.449 of 2015 passed by

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

Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (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

10.06.2015 at about 1:00 p.m., the deceased was going to

Kamareddy on motor bike bearing No.AP-29-BM-5937 as a pillion

rider, while one of his villager was riding the bike and when they

reached Hamara Mitti School near Kupriyal Village on NH-44, a lorry

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner has hit the motor

bike from behind, as a result, the deceased sustained severe

bleeding injuries and when he was being shifted to Government Area

Hospital, he died on the way. The claimants sought a compensation

of Rs.35,00,000/-.

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

ETD,J MACMA No.605_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 crime vehicle was not holding valid driving license

and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is

further contended that the accident occurred due to the sole

negligence of the rider of the motor bike and that there is no

negligence of the driver of the lorry.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the

following issues for trial:-

"1. Whether on 10.06.2015 at about 1:00 p.m., at Hamara Mitti School near Kupriyal Village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.MH46F3991 by its driver?

2. Whether Kushaji Mohan Rao received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

4. To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 4,

Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

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

compensation of Rs.12,42,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021

present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement

of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Palle Sri Harinath, learned

counsel for the appellants and Sri B. Yuvraj, learned Standing

counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

petitioners herein have lost their source of dependency, but the

tribunal has granted a meager amount of compensation by

assessing the income of the deceased to be low as Rs.9,000/- per

month. He further argued that the deceased was a milk vendor and

agriculturist and was possessing Ac.2-00 gts of land and that they

have produced the Income Certificate of the deceased to show that

he used to earn Rs.48,000/- per month by supplying the milk, but still

the tribunal failed to consider the documents filed by them and has

granted meager amount. He therefore prayed to enhance the

compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the

tribunal has rightly considered the evidence on record and has

granted a just amount towards compensation and has prayed to

uphold the same.

ETD,J MACMA No.605_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 claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.

It is their case that the deceased used to earn through agriculture

and was also doing vegetable and milk business. To prove their

case, they got examined PW3.

b) PW3 who is the President of Milk Producers Cooperative

Society Limited, Dharmaraopet. He stated that they used to

purchase milk from the deceased and that he issued Exs.A6 and A9.

He has also submitted the dates between which they have received

supply of milk from the deceased. In his cross examination, he

admitted that Ex.A10/Register of the Society does not show the

name of the deceased as one of the supplier of milk and that Ex.A10

does not bear the signature of the Secretary who used to maintain

the register. It is further elicited from him that the date noted on top

of Ex.A6 is corrected by using whitener and that Ex.A6 bears his

signature.

ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021

c) PW4/Dr. Geetha Mallika, is a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon.

She deposed that she visited the house of the deceased and noticed

15 Buffaloes and has assessed that the said Buffaloes yield 18 to 20

liters of milk per day and thus, has issued Ex.A7 in the presence of

the President of the milk center and another villager. In her cross

examination, it is elicited that Ex.A7 does not bear the date. Several

suggestions were given in her cross examination which were denied

by her.

d) A perusal of Ex.A6 reveals that it is a Certificate issued on the

Letter Head of the Milk Producers Cooperative Society,

Dharmaraopet and the recitals of the documents show that the

deceased used to supply 20 to 25 liters of milk to their centre and

used to earn around Rs.48,000/- per month from their society. Ex.A7

is the Certificate issued by the Veterinary Doctor i.e, PW4 certifying

that the deceased possessed 15 Graded Mudra Buffaloes which are

high milk yielding animals and that the said animals would

approximately produce 18 to 20 liters of milk per day and the income

from the said animals would be around Rs.18,000/- to 20,000/- for

every 15 days. Ex.A10 is the Copy of the Register maintained by the

Milk Producers Cooperative Society, wherein it shows the

registration number of the milk supplier and the number given to the

sample bottles and also the quantity supplied by the said person.

ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021

Though a suggestion was given to the witness that it does not

disclose the name of the deceased, there is no such column

mentioned in the register, but one fact is elicited from the said

record that there is Milk Cooperative Society. Ex.A9 is the Milk

Account Book pertaining to the deceased, it bears the name of the

deceased and his number is revealed as "61". The register under

Ex.A10, does not reveal the name of the deceased but, his

registration number "61" is shown and the entries reflect that he

supplied 55 liters on several dates. Further the Milk Account

Book/Ex.A9 discloses the quantity of the milk that is supplied by the

deceased on several dates. Thus, it is revealed that the deceased

used to supply milk to the Cooperative Milk Society.

e) The age of the deceased as disclosed from Ex.A4 is 33 years,

he was maintaining his wife and daughter. Thus, it is revealed that

the deceased was an able bodied person of 32 years age and was

rearing buffaloes and was supplying milk to the Milk Cooperative

Society. Considering the evidence on record, the tribunal has

assessed the income to be Rs.9,000/- per month. Ex.A8 is the

Original Title Deeds of the deceased showing that he owned an

agricultural field to an extent of Ac.2-07 guntas, this also shows that

he was an agriculturist. Thus, on an over all perusal of the evidence ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021

on record, it is opined that the deceased must have earned

Rs.10,000/- per month.

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

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1, 40% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged '32'

years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 10,000+4000 would

give Rs.14,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.14,000/- x 12 =

Rs.1,68,000/- per annum.

g) The number of claimants herein are two and therefore, 1/3rd

deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,12,000/- (Rs.1,68,000/- (-)

Rs.56,000/-).

h) 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 2, the deceased being aged '32' years,

the appropriate multiplier is '16'. Therefore, the loss of dependency

is assessed as Rs.17,92,000/- (Rs.1,12,000 x 16).

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021

i) 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.

j) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3, 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, there are two 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.

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

amounts:-

1. Compensation under the head of loss of Rs.17,92,000/-

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/-

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021

Total Rs.19,25,100/-

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

calculated as Rs.19,25,100/- while the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.12,42,000/-. 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.19,25,100/- from that of

Rs.12,42,000/- that is awarded by the Tribunal.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:-

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

and Decree dated 18.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.449 of 2015 passed by

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

Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.12,42,000/- to Rs.19,25,100/- 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 ETD,J MACMA No.605_2021

are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued

interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

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. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Date: 19.09.2025 ds