Appeal filed under Section 173 of^the Motor^{VehiclesAct,1988} against the order dated 07.02.2022^{passed in O.P.No.476 of 7999 on the file} of the Chairman Motor Accidents^{Claims Tribunal (Principal District} Judge) at Nalgonda.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nakrekanti Laxmamma, W/ o Late Laxmaiah,^{aged 30 years,} Household.

¶9

2 Nakrekanti Mounika, D / o. Late Laxmaiah,^{aged 72 years,Occ:Student} J Nakrekanti Nagaraju, S/o Late LaxmaiatL^{aged B years, Occ:Student.} 4 Nakrekanti Lalaiah, S/o Pentaiah,^{aged 68 years, Occ:Ni1.} 5 Nakrekanti Muthamma, W/o Lalaiah,^{a1ed63 years,occ:Household.}

¶10

(Appellants Nos.2 & 3 being minors,^rep. by^{their natural mother and} guiidian Nakrekanti Laxmamma,^{ie., AppellantNo.1 herein.)}

¶11

All R/o.Thurkapally Village of^{Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District.}

¶12

.Appellants/ Claimants.

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Mohammad Siddig S/o Mohammad^{jahangir,aged48, Occ:Ownerof} Lorry bearing No.AP 9T^38, R/o.H.No.16-8-542,^{New Malakpet} Hyderabad.

¶15

2 United India Insurance Company^{Limited,Divisional Office -IV,} Ramkoti, Hyderabad,^Rep. by^{its DivisionalManager.}

¶16

(R.1 Disrnissed foi default vide Court^{Order dated24.06.2077.)}

¶17

...Respondents.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri^{M.Madhava Reddy.}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2:Sri N.J.Sunil Kumar.}

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJ'ESHWAR RAO

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No.26L4 OF 20 I 1

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.02.2002 passed in O.p.No.476 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna -cum-District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal").

¶25

For convenience, the parties will be hereir after referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that the petittoners hled a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,O00/- on account of the death of Nakrekanti LaxmaialL (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") in a motor vehicle eccident that occurred on 06.03.1999. It is stated that on 06 03.1999, the deceased was travelling as a cleaner on the torry bearing No.AP-9-T-38 from Yelikatte Village of Chityal Mandal to Hyderabad with a load of Babul trees. When the said lorry reached near Malkapuram Village, due to ttre rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, it dashed agi{nst another lorry bearing No.KA-39-721 1. As a result, the deceased

¶27

¶28

¶29

Itl{N.J lvl^CltlA No.261,, ol20l I

¶30

received multiple injuries and died on the spot. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children and petitioner Nos.4 arrd 5 are the parents of deceased Nakrekanti Laxmaiah

¶31

Before the Tribuna-l, respondent No. 1 , owner of the crime lorry was set ex parte, and respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition.

¶32

To prove their case, petitioners examined PWs.l and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to 4.6. On beha,lf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced.

¶33

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.1,40,200/- with interest@9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of reaTizatron. Challenging the sarne, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that although the claimarts stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3,OOO/- per month, the Tribunal has erroneously taken Rs.6O0/- per month. Even if the minimum wage is taken into consideration, the present salary of a Cleaner is

¶35

RITN.] \lA( l\lA No l(,l4 ot2r)tt

¶36

Rs.3,500/-, but the Tribunal erred in fixing the contribution to the family as Rs.60O/ , u.hich is on the lowr:r side. The Tribunal also erred in appreciating the verr' essence of Ex.A3/Post Mortem Report, which shows that the deceased <sup>/as aged 27 7,ears, and the Tribunal has not granted any amount tou,ards loss of estate and loss of conso^tium. Hence, learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal by enl-rancing the compensation.

¶37

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Companv submits that the case is of the year 1999, when the salary of the Cleaner could be Rs.2,000/_ or Rs.2,2OOl-; as such, the salary may be taken as Rs.2,2OOl_ and the interest portion also should be reduced to 67o instead of 9%o.

¶38

Heard both sides.^perused the record.

¶39

There is no dispute with regard to the involvement of the motor vehicles and the manner of the accident, as stated in the claim petition. The Tribunal, while answering issue No.1: u.thether the accident was d.ue to rash and_ negligent d_iuing bg the diuer of lorry beaing No. Ap g r 38? discussed the issue at length by taking into consideration Ex.A 1 Irllt, Ex.A2

¶40

l(RN.l l\lr( NlA No 261'1 .ll0ll

¶41

¶42

chargesheet and the^{evidence of PW'2-eyewitness, ald the} Tribunal has rightly decided the^{issue infavour of the} petitioners, the same is not challenged,^{thus attainedfinality'}

¶43

With regard to the^{quantumof compensation, as per the} evidence of PW.1, the wife^of the^{deceased,her husband, was} aged 27 years and was earning^{Rs.3,000/- per month as a} Cleaner. Considering the minimum^{wagerates at the relevant} point of time, this Court is inclined^{to hx the monthly income} of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-.^{To this, future prospects of} 4O,,/o i.e. Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/-^{+ Rs. 1,200) is to be addedas} per the decision of the Honble^{SupremeCourt inNational} Insurance Compang Ltd. Vs, Pranag^{Sethitas the deceased} was aged 27 years. Since the^{dependantsare 5 in number, a} deduction of I l4th of the income^{of the deceased towards} personal expenses which the deceased^{might have spentfor} himself, is proper and after deduction,^{the net monthly income} of the deceased works out to^{Rs.3,15O/-- The appropriate} multiplier as per the decision of^{Sarla Venna Vs. Delhi} Transport Corporation2 is "17".^{Thus, the total loss of} dependency would come to^{Rs.6,42,60O/-(Rs.3,1501-x12 x} t7.

¶44

r(2ol?) r6 scc 680

¶45

'(2009)^{6 scc l2l.}

¶46

IIRN.,I \l/( NI:\ N,) 16 ta o, l0|l

¶47

¶48

The Tribunai awarded Rs.15,000/ tou,ar.ds pecuniary damages, Rs. t O,OO0,r_ tou,ards loss of consorttum, which are very meagrc. The petitioners are entitled to lompensation under conventional heads as per rhe decision ct. the Honble Apex Court in Pranag Sethi (supra) and lllagr.,.a Insurance Compang Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram3. petitioner No.1, being thc ri,ife of the deceased, is entitled tc Rs.44,0OO/(Rs.4O,OO0/- t. 1O%t) towards spousal consortiunr, petitioners No.2 and 3 being minor children, and petitionerri No.4 and 5 being tire parenrs of 1he deceased are cntitled to Rs.40,000/, each i.e., Rs. 1,60,00O/_ tou,ard.s loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium. The petitioners are also entitled to Rs. I 6,500 / (Rs 1 5,000/- + I O%) rowards funeral expenses and anoth<:r' Rs. l6,5OO/- (Rs.15,0t)0/- t lO%.) tov,ards loss of

¶49

estate. The claimants are eutitled for compensation as under:

¶50

Head [ j I For loss of "	A*"""i byttle arrived at Tribunal	Amountarriveda t bythirrCourt
4p!49I!,)l lossofconsortiurnto de endants	Rs.l,l5 Rs 10,000/- ,200 +	tt{,,a:LQqoJ-:- Rs.2,Ozt,OOO/-
lossoffr.tneraI expenscsic., pqcgnlar-;,darnagcs I-ossof[,]stalt. T()t:rl I I L	Rs15,000/- NIL 1L2ool. I?:;.I, l l I	Rs. r6,5OO/- Rs. 16 Rs.8,79 5OO/- o/-

¶51

32018 Lalv SLril (SCl q0,l

¶52

¶53

\1.\c\t\,.r rn ttr

¶54

With regard to interest, the l'ribunal granted 9%o interest on the awarded amount. However, this Court is inclined to grant 6.54/o intere st on the enhanced amount upon the request of learned counsel of respondent No.2.

¶55

In all, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to Rs.8,79,600/- towards compensation.'l'hough the claimed amount is Rs.3,O0,OOO/-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in vie'rv of thc law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Rajesh us. Rajbir Singhe, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the petitioners/ appellants shall pay the dehcit Court fee on the enhanced compensation.

¶56

As seen from the cause title, the case against respondent No.1 was dismissed, as the appellants/ petitioners faiied to comply with the conditional order dt.24.06.2O11. However, the dismissal against respondent No.1/owner is of no consequence for the determination of a just, fair and reasonable quantum of compensation against thc Insurance Company in vievv of the

¶57

'^{MANLlsclo,t8or2otl}

¶58

¶59

¶60

R'IN.] \lA( Il,\ No li,l l ., l0l l

¶61

judgment of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao Vs. yelubandi Babu Rao^(.@ Reddemma.s

¶62

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed against respondents No.1 and 2, and the compenl;ation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs,. 1,4O,2OO/_ to Rs.8,79,6OO/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Seventy lline Thousand Six hundred only) with interest @ 6.5^o/o p.a. orr the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving du: credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. On sucl deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount in the ration as determined by the Tribunal subject to payment of the deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶64

closed

¶65

sdl- K.^AMMAJI E Qoor [t) ALT^{4q5' DB} ASSISTANT^RE TST IITRUECOPY// SECTION FFICER

¶66

'o'r. ,n"^{Chairman Motor Accider-rts Claims 'l'ribur-ral(Principal District} ' i"lt"i ,i Nalgorrcla (With rccords if any)' 2.'d;"uiC i"'iriv^{rt,t"i n"'" n"Jav'Advocatejol']UCl}

¶67

;. oil; ci^{to s.i N} I^{s-'iiku"lar'Advocate [OPUC]}

¶68

Two CD^CoPies

ICK/NIB

It i t. ! i I

HIGH COURT

DATED:78/08/2023

IUDGMENT+^DECREE

MACMA.No.2674 of 2017

¶77

.r{E sTA
1
L -(. .ri
c
'c-
U3 APH .i
.,,/
..1 . 't:e"ri'.:!1.*
{*i---------l-

¶78

Allowing the M.A.C.M.A. withour costs

¶79

@o*'o

¶80

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶81

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶82

PRESENT

¶83

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAIESHWAR RAO

¶84

M.A.C.M.A.No.251 4 of 2011

¶85

Between:

¶86

Nakrekanti Laxmamma, W / o Late Laxmaiah, aged 30 years, Household.

¶87

Nakrekanti Mounika, D/o. Late Laxmaiah, aged 72 years, Occ:Student.

¶88

Nakrekanti Nqgggq S/ o I ate Laxmaiah, ugEd g y"u.", Occ:Student. 4. Nakrekanti Lalaiah, S/ o Pentaiah, aged 68 yiars, Occ:Nil. 5. Nakrekanti Muthamma, W / o Lalaiih, aged,6Z years, occ:Household.

¶89

(App9]lant9 Nos.2 & 3 being minors, rep. by their natural mother and guardian Nakrekanti [axmamma. ie., Appeliant iVo.1 herein.)

¶90

All R/o.Thurkapally Village of Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶91

...Appellants/ Claimants.

¶92

AND

¶93

Mohammad Sid-diq, S/o Mohammad Jahangir, aged 48, Occ:Ou,ner of Lorry bearing No.AP 9T 38, R/o.H.No.16-8:542, NIew Malakper Hyderabad.

¶94

U-nited India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office JV,

¶95

._ _^{Ramkoti , Hyderabad,} B"p.^{bi its DivisionatManager.}

¶96

(R.1 Dismissed foi default vide Court Order dated 24.06:2077.)

¶97

...Respondents.

¶98

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg against the order dated 07.02.2022 passed in o-p.No.476 of 1999 on the file of the chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (principal District Judge) at Nalgonda.

¶99

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Cturt anl the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri M.Madhav \eddy,^{for the Appellants and Sri N.J.SunilKumar, Advocatefor Respondent} No.2.

¶100

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶101

That this appeal be and hereby is allowed against respondents No.1 and 2, and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,40,200/- to Rs. g,79,600/_ (Rupees Eight lakhs seventy nine thousand six hundred only) with interest @ 6.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶102

The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two monihs from receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶103

That on such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount in the ratio as determined by the Tribunal subject to payment of deficit Court fee.

¶104