[ 3443 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYOERABAD

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 510 OF 2020

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against order and

decree dated 23.2.2006 made in O.P.No.211 of 2001 on the file of the Court of

the Motor Accident Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar, for the following among other.

Between:

1. Kurva Krishnaiah, S/o K.Jangaiah, aged about 41 years, R/o Gundoor Village,

Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist.

2. Kurva Nagamani, D/o K.Krishnaiah, aged 12 years, Minor, R/o Gundoor

Village, Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist., being rep.by the 1st

appellant

.,.APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS

AND

1. M Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o M.N/adhava Reddy, Owner Auto beanng

No.APl O-U-3900, R/o 1 1-1-348/4/4, Seethaphalmandi Stteet, Secunderabad

2. The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd, rep.by its Divisional lvlanager,

Divisional Otfice, No.1 1 1, Kare Trade Cenke, M.G,Road, Secunderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI T KUMAR BABU

Counsel for the Respondent No. : -

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : BATHULA RAJ KIRAN

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO ]\l ANDIKONDA

M.A.C.M.A.No.5 1O of 2O2O

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 171 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitione:' aggrieved by

the Award and decree dated23.O2.2006 passec .n O.P.No.211

of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tr bunal-Cum-Il

Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, (fc: short, "the

Tribunal") seeking enhancement of the compens€ [ion.

2 For convenie,ncc. the parties will be here t.after referred

to:rs thcv arc arrlrved belore tl-re Tribunal

3. Briel' lacts 01' the case are as follows :

On 30.08.2000, the deceased and others were ,r avelling in an

Auto bearing No.AP-10-U-390O and when the luto stopped,

the deceased was getting down from the auto, th : driver of the

auto started the auto in a rash and negligen : manner as a

result, the deceased fell down and the auto ran over the

deceased. Immediately, the deceased was shift: I to Osmania

General Hospital and she was died on 03.l1.2000 while

undergoing treatment, The Police registered a cr) ;e against the

2

NNRJ

MACMA No.51O of 2020

driver of the offending vehicle. The appellants/ petitioners

claimed an arnount of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation for the

death of the deceased under various heads.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1- driver of

the auto remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 - The Oriental

Insurance Company Limited, file counter-affidavit, denying all

the averments made in the claim petition, including the

manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and

income of the deceased and further contendcd that the

compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the

claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

learned counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following

issues which reads as under:

i) Whether the deceased died in the accident occuned on 3O-

8-2000 due to rash ad negligent driuing of the dnuer of the

outo be aring No. AP- 1 0 -U-3 90 0?

it) Whether the petttioners are ent[tled to the compensation?

iii) To uLhat relief

6. To prove the petitionels' case, PWs.l & 2 were examined

and marked Exs.Al to A8. No oral evidence was adduced on

3

available on record, the Tribunal awarded ar amount of

NIYR"J

! ACMA No.s10 of2O2O

behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B 1- Driving Licence was

marked on behalf of Respondent No.2.

7. After considering the oral and document rry evidence

Rs.1,5O,OOO/- rvith interest @

7 .sYo per ar num. Being

unsatisfied and aggrieved with the Award < ompensation

granted by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner;/appellants,

who are the husband and daughter of the decea;ed, filed the

present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claim z nts submits

that there is no dispute with regard to acci: :nt, injuries

sustained by the deceased and the death of t re deceased.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has conten led that the

deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident

and the petitioner clarimed that the deceased

Rs 3000/ per month b1, doing labour r.r'ork

Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceaserl

rash and negligent driving of the auto driver.

considering the evidence in proper manner r.r.i

income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal

was earning

The learned

died due to

but without

h regard to

has granted

4

IUBJ

MACMA No.s10 of 2020

compensation of Rs. i,60,000/-, hor,,",ever the same was

rounded off to Rs.1,50,000/- in all, therefore, the amount

awarded by the learned Tribunal is very meager and

unjustifiable.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-The Orienta.l

Insurance Company Limited submits that a-fter considering the

entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded

just compensation, which needs no interference.

10. Heard both sides and perused the record.

1 1. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal

against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal, As such,

there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age

of the deceased and accident. The only point which would

arouse before this Court in this appeal is that

i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced

compensation, if so, to what extent?

Point No. 1:

12. Admittedly, the deceased died due to injuries sustained

by her in the accident occurred on 30,08.2000. The petitioners

claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,00 O /-

per month,

\:

/

5

however, no income certificate has been filed.

the records available and the averrnents ma I

learned counsels before this Court, it is held thr

was iabourer which is neither disputed nor r.r

learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Henr:,

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

Wadhwa us. State of Blhart wherein the Hon'

held that even u.'hen there is no proof of incom:

the income can be reasonably estimated by the

be assessed considering the ground realities.

1 3. Hence, considering the ground realities a-t

case, this Court is of the considered view thrr

income of the deceased can be taken as Rs..

which even the unskilled or daily labourer can

Hence, the monthly income of the deceased car

taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. Apart from th

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natlon

Compang Limited Vs. pranag

Sethl and.

considering the age of the deceased as 30 yee

But looking at

: by both the

t the deceased

butted by the

, consider the

:ase of Latha

rle Apex Court

and earnings,

lourt and can

I facts of the

the notional

00/- per day

easily earned.

be notionally

rt, as per the

ll Insurance

others2 and

rs, additional

1 2001(B) SCC 197 i-

2 2417 AC) 27AA

NNR.J

MACMA No,sIO of 2O2O

6

NNR.J

MACMA No.s10 of 2020

4Oo/o of the income has to be added towards future prospects to

the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly

income of the deceased would come to Rs.4,200/- (Rs'3,000/-

+ Rs.1,2OO/-). The annual income of the deceased would come

to Rs.5O,4OOI- (Rs.4,2OO l- X 12 and, out of which, 1/3 has

to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased

as the dependants are two in number' Then the actual annual

income would come to Rs.33,600/- (Rs 50,a00/- o

Rs.16,800/-). As per the column No 4 of schedule fixed in the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verrna u' Delhi

Transpor't Corporatlon3, and considering the age of the

deceased as 30 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for

the deceased's age is '17'. Thus, the total loss of dependency

would come to Rs.5,71,20O l- P3'6OO l- x l7\'

14 . The appellants/ claimants are further entitled to

Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + lOo/o + 10%) towards loss of estate

and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,OOOl- + lTo/o + loo/o towards funeral

expenses, as per Pranag Sethl's Judgment (cited supra)

\

r

2oos ecL r298 (sc)

7

NNRJ

! {CMA No,s10 of 2020

15. Further, considering the appellant No.1 being the

husband of deceased, appellant No.1 is entitlec to a sum of

Rs.48,'1OO/ - under lhe head of 1oss of spousal cc nsortium' as

per Prandu Sethi's Jttdgment (cited supra).

16. Appellant No.2 being daughter of the <1 :ceased, the

appellant No.2 is entitled for compensation I r a sum of

Rs.48,400/- towards loss of parental consorl.i -tm', as per

Magma General Insurance Compang Ltmlted'U s,Nanu Rann

alis Chuhnt Rama.

17. In Sarla Verrnd's cdse (clted aboue), the lonble Apex

Court, while elaborating the concept of Just

,l )mpensation'

observed as under

"Post compensation is adequate compensation .., hich is

fair and equitable on the facts and circumstanc'z ; of the

case, to make good the loss suffered as a resLl of the

turong, as far os moneA can do so, by applging, t rc uell

settled principles relating to auard of comperL:;t tion. It

is ttot tntended to be a bonanza, largesse or sc urce of

proJit."

iB. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings material on

record and the law laid down by the Honble Sr"rpr -'me Court in

the a-foresaid cited decisions. I am of the opir ion that the

o

zor a 1ra; scc r:o

8

NNR.J

MACMA No.510 of 2020

claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensationAS

modified and recalculated as above ald given in the table for

easy reference

19. Considering the above assessment made by this Court,

appellants would be entitled to as follows:

nnual Income (of the deceased)

s.3,000/-X12 = Rs.36,000/-

iu)Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied

Multiplier = Rs.33,600- x 17

Claimant6' entitlement towards conventiona.l heads =

Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of Spousal

Consortium + loss of Parental Consortium

Rs.18,150/- + Rs. 18,I50/- + Rs.48,400/- +

Rs.48,400/-

v)

Rs.s,71,2001-

Rs. 1 ,3 3, 1 00/-

Total Rs. 7,04, 3 00/-

20. By considering the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Nagappa VsGurudagal Singhs, the compensation can be

awarded more than the claimed arnount". Therefore, the

petitioners/ appellants/ claimants are entitled to the enhanced

{

i)

DTotal Annual Income = Annual Income + Future

Prospects (Annual Income X 400lo) =

Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/- = Rs.SO,4OO/-

lI)Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/3

deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased

Rs.5o,400/- (-) Rs. 16,800/- Rs.33,600/-

' zoo3 1z1scc zll

9

NNRJ

! {CMA ro'510 of 2O2O

compensation of Rs.7,O4r3OO/- as against 1 re awarded

amount of Rs.1,5O,0OO l- by the learned Tribunal

21 . Considering the circumstances of the casr: the learned

Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interes. at 7 '5

o/o

per

annum and the same needs no interference t': this Court'

Hence, this Court is of the opiniorr that the

petitioners/ clarmants are entitled to interest @'

' 5 % on the

enhanced amounI

22. Hence, the claimants are entitled for .n enhanced

compensation of Rs'7,O4,30O/-. Accordingly, th': M'A'C M A is

allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs' i,50,000/- to

Rs.7,O4,3OO/- with interest at the rate @7'5'

6 p'a' on the

enhanced amount from the date of petition ti I the date of

realization. The respondents are directed to d': losit the said

amount together with costs and interest after giv ng due credit

to the amount already deposited, if any, within e period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of t ris judgment'

The compensation amount shall be apportior- r d among the

appellants/ cla'imants in the same manner and ri tio as ordered

b1' the learnecl Tribunal. However, the petitiont'l s are directed

t0

NNR,.,I

MACMA No510 of 202o

To,

to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

There sha1l be no order as to costs.

23. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand

closed.

t

SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Motor Accident Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. DistrictSessions J u dge,

Ivlahabubnaoar, Telanqana.

z one ci to SRI T KUIfiAR BABU Advocate [oPUC-]

3. One CC to SRl. BATHULA RAJ KIRAN Advocate [o

4. Two CD Copies

GE/PSL

Yrd

PUC]

..,,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 3/06/2025

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.510 of 2020

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

H

0

1t?Iq

.(i

*

*

e ,fa

YL-

ztil:*s

z-

6)

[ 3443 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANOIKONDA

MOTOR ACCIDET CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 510 OF 2020

Between:

1. Kurva Krishnaiah, S/o K.Jangaiah, aged about 41 years, R/o Gundoor Village

Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist.

2. KuNa Nagamani, D/o K.Krishnaiah, aged 12 yearc, Minor, R/o Gundoor

Village, Kalwakurthy Mandal; Mahaboobnagar Dist., being rep.by the 1st

appellant

...APF'ELLANTS / PETITIONERS

AND

1. M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o M.Madhava Reddy, OwnerAuto bearing

No.AP1 O-U-3900, Fiio 1 1-1-348/4/4, Seethaphalmandi Stteet, Secunderabad.

2. The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd, rep.by its Divisional Manager,

Divisional Office, No.11'1 , Kare Trade Centre, M.G.Road, Secunderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against order and

decree dated 23.2.2006 made in O.P.No.211 ol 2001 on the file of the Court of

the lvlotor Accident Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar, for the following among other.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of

appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in

the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI T KUMAR BABU, Advocate for

the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No.'l and SRI BATHULA RAJ

KIRAN appeared for Respondent No.2.

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the t\,4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be ant hereby allowed.

2. Thal the compensation amount awarded by the Tribt nal be and hereby

enhanced from Rs.1 .50,000/- to Rs.7,04,300/- with inte 1 st at the rate @ 7.5

% p.a. on the enhanced amounl from the date of po tion till the date of

realizalion.

3. That the respondents are be and hereby directed to leposit the amount

together with costs and interest after giving due credit tc the amount already

deposited, if any, within a period of two months from ti-e date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

4 That the compensation amount be and is hereby sha I b( apportioned among

the a ppella nts/cla ima nts in the same manner and rat r as ordered by the

learned Tribunal.

5. That the petrtioners are be and hereby directed to pay t re Deficit Court Fee

on the enhanced amount within two months from the datr of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal

iD/. MOHO. ISMAIL

To

rrrue copvtt f\h! 11TlPfn*r

\

.

iECTION OFFICER,1

I

\

The Motor Accident Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. District afu ! ..ssions Judge,

Mahabubnagar, Telangana.

Two CD Copies.

GE/PSL

\k

2

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/06/2025

DECREE

MACMA.No.510 of 2020

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

r ,.cf,iu)

\o

--<{^r

c \"rk