[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Reliance General Ins Comp Ltd., ... vs C Laxmi, Karimnagar Dist And 7 Others on 2 April, 2026

       THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

                              HYDERABAD


             THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                           MACMA.No.37 of 2016

                           DATED: 2nd April 2026

Between:

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
                                     ... Appellant - respondent No.3
                                      And
1.Chelikani Laxmi and four others
                                     ... Respondent Nos.1 to 5 -
                                          Petitioners
6.Maruti Rathod and another
                                     ... Respondent Nos.6 and 7 -
                                          Respondent Nos.1 and 2


                              JUDGMENT

1. This Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous appeal

is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV

Act'), assailing the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle

Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District Judge, Karimnagar

(for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVOP.No. 845 of 2012, dated 23.09.2015.

BRMR,J

2. Appellant is respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the

petitioners and respondent Nos.6 and 7 are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in

MVOP.No.845 of 2012.

3. Notice got issued to respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the appeal are

served, but none appeared for them.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant - respondent No.3 submits that

the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the name of the driver of

the lorry was changed from Jadav Vijay to Maruthi Rathod. The owner of

the lorry has surrendered Maruthi Rathod before the police. The police

have colluded with the owner of the lorry and wrongly planted Maruthi

Rathod as the driver of the lorry, which gives suspicion on which the

claim ought to have been dismissed by the Tribunal. It is the statutory

duty of the owner of the vehicle to see that the driver to whom the vehicle

is entrusted holds an effective driving license to drive the vehicle. The

learned Tribunal has also erred in considering the income of the

deceased as Rs.11,760/- per month as a security guard which is on

higher side and PW3 is not competent to depose the income of the

deceased is Rs.11,760/-. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the

accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both

vehicles and the driver of the motorcycle did not control the vehicle as he

was traveling on the newly formatted road, ought to have taken the

BRMR,J

evidence of RW1 and should have concluded that respondent Nos.1 to 5

- petitioners are not entitled for any compensation, erred in granting

amounts under different heads, also erred in awarding interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum instead of 6% per annum and prayed to allow

the appeal and set aside the impugned award.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners submits

that learned Tribunal has failed to add future prospects, filial

consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Counsel further

submits that just compensation has to be awarded to the respondents

Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners. In support of his contention has relied on the

decisions in the cases of (i) Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others1

and (ii) Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others Vs. ICICI

Lombord Insurance Company Limited 2.

6. Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the

respondent Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners, if so?

ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from

any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this

Court?

2020 ACJ 2156 [Three Judge Bench]

(2022) 10 SCC 512

BRMR,J

7. As per Ex.A1 - FIR the name of the driver is shown as Jadhav

Vijay. On 29.04.2012 the owner of the lorry has produced Maruthi

Rathod who was the driver of the crime vehicle before PS Kadam. PS

Kadam has filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against Maruthi Rathod

under Section 304(A) of IPC.

8. The eye witness to the accident is PW2 - Mohd. Yakub, he deposed

the manner in which the accident has taken place.

9. Legal retainer of the appellant - respondent No.3 is examined as

RW1 - M.Madhukar, his evidence is that the police in collusion with the

owner of the crime vehicle changed the driver of the vehicle from Jadhav

Vijay to Maruthi Rathod and there is no proper explanation in the charge

sheet to change the driver of the crime vehicle. In his cross examination

he stated that the report of the investigator is not filed in the Court,

insurance policy [Ex.B1] was subsisting as on the date of accident, no

complaint is lodged by the appellant - respondent No.3 with the senior

police officials stating that the name of the driver of the lorry was

changed from Jadhav Vijay to Maruthi Rathod, no steps are taken by the

appellant - respondent No.3 to show that there are two persons by

names Jadhav Vijay and Maruthi Rathod and no protest petition is filed

by Maruthi Rathod before the Court claiming that he is not the driver of

the crime vehicle.

BRMR,J

10. The learned Tribunal having considered the evidence of PW2 with

that of Exs.A1 and A2 arrived at a conclusion that the accident has

occurred due to rash negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

11. Insofar as the compensation, the learned Tribunal has taken the

income of the deceased as Rs.11,760/- per month basing on Ex.A6 -

salary certificate of the deceased issued by Veeaar Security Agency,

Hyderabad Ex.X1 - certified copy of attendance register for the period

from 04.10.2011 to 03.02.2012 and also the evidence of PW3 - Mohd.

Rafiuddin, arrived annual income at Rs.1,41,120/- [11,760 x 12],

deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses and arrived at

Rs.1,05,840/- [1,41,120 - (1/4th of 1,41,120 = 35,280)], taken the age of

the deceased as 37 years, applied multiplier '15' and arrived loss of

dependency at Rs.15,87,600/- [1,05,840 x 15]. Further, the learned

Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to

respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1, Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of love

and affection to respondent Nos.2 to 5 - petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expense. In total the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.18,12,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

date of filing the petition till the date of actual deposit against

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally [i.e., respondent Nos.6 and 7

and appellant herein].

BRMR,J

12. Just compensation can be awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 -

petitioners in absence of any cross-appeal. See: Surekha1.

13. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners are entitled for future

prospects, spousal consortium, parental consortium, loss of estate and

funeral expenses as per the decision in Janabai2.

14. This Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly

taken the income of the deceased as Rs.11,760/- per month, rightly

taken the age of the deceased as 37 years and applied multiplier '15'.

15. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under:

       Sl.No.              Name of the Head              Compensation
                                                        awarded by this
                                                              Court
       1.       Income                                 Rs.11,760/- per month
       2.       Add 40% future prospects               Rs.16,464/-
                                                       11,760 + 4,704
                                                       40% of 11,760 = 4,704

3. Deduct 1/4th towards personal Rs.12,348/-

                expenses                      16,464 - 4,116
                                              1/4th of 16,464 = 4,116
       4.       Annual income                          Rs.1,48,176/-
                                                       12,348 x 12
       5.       Multiplier '15'                        Rs.22,22,640/-
                                                       1,48,176 x 15
                Loss of dependency                     Rs.22,22,640/-
       6.       Consortium                             Rs.2,42,000/-
                Rs.48,400/- to each petitioner         48,400 x 5
       7.       Loss of estate                         Rs.18,150/-
       8.       Funeral expenses                       Rs.18,150/-
                Total                                  Rs.25,00,940/-

                                                                        BRMR,J

16. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum, this Court is not disturbing the same.

17. Appellant - respondent No.3 has not made out any case to

interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the

respondent Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners are entitled for just compensation as

stated supra.

18. In the result, MACMA.No.37 of 2016 is dismissed and the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:

a) The impugned award dated 23.09.2015, passed in

MVOP.No.845 of 2012, stands modified.

b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,

Rs.18,12,600/- is enhanced to Rs.25,00,940/- together with

costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

date of filing the petition till payment.