Partly allowed

Navaneetha Rao Takkallapally, v. Thipparapu Sunitha

Telangana HC12 Dec 2023MACMA/304/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeals. Driver/owner challenged Tribunal award directing insurance to pay compensation and recover from them, citing driver's acquittal. High Court partly allowed appeals, reducing compensation based on notional income of Rs.4,500/month, modifying amounts, but affirmed pay-and-recover direction.

What did the court decide?

Compensation in MACMA No.303/2023 reduced from Rs.10,20,000 to Rs.6,05,950; in MACMA No.304/2023 from Rs.18,79,090 to Rs.11,68,700; pay-and-recover direction against appellants affirmed; 6% interest.

Navaneetha Rao Takkallapally, Vs Thipparapu Sunitha — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH^DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA^ALISHETW

¶6

MACMA NO: 303 AND 304 oF 2023

¶7

MACMA NO: 303 OF 202s

¶8

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988^{against the Award} and decree in Ivt.V,O.P.No.1 2 of 2021 dated 06-12-2022^{on lhe file of the Court of} the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunalrcum-^{Principal DistrictJudge,} Jangaon.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Naveetha Rao Takkallapally, S/o. Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about^{30 years,} Occ.Business. R/o- H.No.^-24-1-21111, Near R.E-0^{Petiol Pump, Pragathi} Nagar, Durga Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban^District

¶11

Takkallapally Vijaya, W/o. Venkateshwar !qo, fged about^{49_ years,} Occ-Busineds, R7o. H.No. 24-1-21111, Near^R.E.O Petrol^{Pump,7- Pragathi} Nagar, Durga Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal^{Urban District}

¶12

...Appellants/Respondent Nos.1 & 2

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Manegalla Laxmi, Wo. Late Narsaiah, Aged about^{40 years,} Occ.^Housewife.

¶15

2 Manegalla Nagara.ju, S/o- Late Narsaiah, Aged about 29^years, Occ. Agriculture.

¶16

Manegalla Prasad, S/o. late. Narsaiah Aged about.11^{years,Occ.Student} ( Minor)

¶17

tvlanegalla Vaishnavi, D/o. Late Narsaiah, Aged about 8 years, Occ.Student.(Minor) (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 being minors are rep. by their Mother and natural guardian the respondent No.1 herein) All are Rl,/o. Pembarthy Village of Jangaon Revenue Mandal and Jangaon District.

¶18

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶19

The Manager SBI General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, 0/o. 3rd Floor, Ozone Commercial Complex, H.No. 6-3-66/1, Panjagutta^Main Road, Hyderabad. 500032.

¶20

...RespondenURespondent No.3

¶21

MACMA NO: 304 OF 2023

¶22

Appeal filed Under Section¹⁷³ of^{MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the Award} and decree in lvl.V.O.P.No.392^{o'f 2o2Odated 06-12-2022on lhe file of the Courtof} the Chairman, Motor Accident Ctaims^{Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge'} Jangaon.

¶23

Between:

¶24

Navaneetha Rao Takkallapally, Sio. Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about³⁰ years, Occ.Business, R:/o. H.No. 24-1-211l1, Near R.E.0 Petrol^Pump' Pragathi Nagar, Durga Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban^District.

¶25

Takkallapally Vijaya, Wo. Venkateshwar Rao, / Aged about^{49 years,Occ.} Business, R/o. H.No. 24-1-21111, Near R.E.o Petrol Pump,^{7- Pragathi Nagar,} Durga Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District.

¶26

...Appellants/Respondent Nos.1 &²

¶27

AND

¶28

Thipparapu Sunitha, W/o. Late Narsaiah, Aged about^{40 years, Occ.} Housewife.

¶29

Thipparapu Pallavi, D/o. Late Narsaiah, Aged about^{17 years, Occ. Student.} (Minor)

¶30

Thipparapu Devaiah, S/o. late, Ramaiah Aged about. 57^years,Occ. Agriculture.

¶31

Thipparapu Laxmi, W/o. Devaiah, Aged about 52^years, Occ. Housewife. (Respondent No. 2 being minor is rep. by her Mother_and natural^guardian the iespondent No.1 hereintAll are Rl/o. Kaliem Village of Lingala Ghanpur Mandal of Jangaon District.

¶32

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶33

The tr,lanager SBI General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch^Manager, 0/o. 3rd Floor, Ozone Commercial Complex, H.No.6-3-66/1, Panjagutta^Main Road, Hyderabad. 500032

¶34

...RespondenURespondent No.3

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant in both Appeals : SRI T MAHENDER^RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 in MACMA No.303 of 2023 : SRI S CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 in MACMA No.304 of 2023 : None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.5 in both Appeals : SRI A RAMA KRISHNA REDDY

¶36

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶37

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶38

M.A.C.M.A.NOs.3O3 and 3O4 of 2023

¶39

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶40

Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S.Chatapathi Rao for respondent Nos. I to 4 in MACMA No.303 of 2023, Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy for respondent no.1-insurance company in both appeals.

¶41

Both the appeals are hled by the driver and owner of the crime vehicle in an accident occurred on 09.O9.2O2O.

¶42

Since the issue in the above appeals is arising out of the same accident, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶43

The claimants in both the appeals hled MVOP No.392 of 2O2O and MVOP No. 12 of 2021, respectively. MACMA No.3O3 of 2023 is arising out o[ MVOP No. 12 o[ 2O2L and MACMA No.3O4 of 2023 ts arising out of MVOP No.392 ot 2O2O.

¶44

The facts leading to tiling o[ Appeals are,

¶45

(a) MVOP No.12 of 2O2L is f-rled under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the wife, sons and daughter of the deceasedManegalla Narsaiah, claiming compensation of Rs. 15,OO,0O0/^- on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle fatal accident.

¶46

.//'

¶47

I,IiA,J ttlctl,1 nos 30t & :aJ of202J

¶48

¶49

(i) As per the averments of the petition, on 09.09.2O20 at about 5.3o p.m., the deceased-Manegala Narsaiah started from his house Pembarthy to go to his agricultural land through Tangutoor X Roads on his cycle and when he reached the Tangutoor X road of Pembarthy village on NH-163, one Innova Car bearing registration No.TS-O3-EV-4668, driven by its driver, who is appellant no. 1, in 'drunken condition dashed against the deceased_M.Narsaiah and also one Thipparapu Narsiah @ Anand, who was going to his villagc through Tangutoor on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-36-AV-4565 and he has also dashed a passenger auto bearing registration No.Ap-20-TBO2753. As a result of which, both deceased received severe injuries and died on the spot and the inmates of the Auto, namely, Jannu Bhaskar and Krishna received severe injuries. The Police, p.S.Jangaon registered a case in Crime No.282 /2O2O under Section 304-lI IpC against the driver, who drove the crime vehicle in a drunken state rashly and ncgligently.

¶50

(i4 According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 59 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and was doing agriculture and earning Rs. I0,OO,0OO/- per annum and contributed the same to his family members and claimed Rs. f 5,0O,0OO/- towards compensation .

¶51

. ,,,

¶52

LNA.J VACMA Nos 30J & J01 of2023

¶53

(b) MVOP No.392 of 2O2O is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased-Thipparapu Narsaiah alias Anand, claiming compensation of Rs.3O,O0,OOO/- on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle fatal accident, the details of which are narrated in the preceding paragraph.

¶54

Respondent no.3-insurance company filed written statement denying all the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged incident and there is violation of Section 3(1) of M.V.Act and the respondent no.2 who is the owner of crime vehicle is liable for compensation. It is further contended that the Police filed charge sheet against the driver under Sectiond 30a(2)(n), 338,279 ol IPC and Section 185 of M.V.Act by stating that he consumed ethyl alcohol, which is evident from RFSL report, as such, the respondent no.3-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and the owner is liable to pay compensation.

¶55

Appellants I ar.d 2 herein, who are the driver and owner of crime vehicle, fiIed written statement denying the allegations made in th1 claim petitions and contended that amounts claimed by the claimairts towards compensation for the death of deceased persons

¶56

.,, \

¶57

L!\ T J )VACMA Nos Jt)J & J01 ol 2021

¶58

¶59

ls excessive. It is contended that the crime vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3-insurance company and therefore, appellants are not liable to pay any amount. Further, the altegation against the driver that he consumed alcohol at the time of accident rs correct

¶60

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues:

¶61

In MVOP NO.392 of 2O2O

¶62

il Whether the accident occurred on 09.09.2020 at about I7.30 hours near Tangutoor X Road at pembarthy village (NH 1631 due to rash and negligent driving of driver/Rl of Innova Car bearrng No-TS 03-AV-4668, causing the death o[ the deccasedThipparapu Narsaiah.

¶63

ii) Whether the respondent no.1 was not holding valid and eftective driving license at the time of the alleged incident?

¶64

iii) Whether petitioners are entifled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?

¶65

iv) To what relief ?

¶66

In MVOP No 12 of 2O2l:

¶67

i) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe vehicle Innova Car bearing No.TS_ o3-AV-4668 ?

¶68

ir) Whether the petitioners are enritled lor the compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

¶69

iii) To what relief ?

¶70

LNA,J MACt'tA I'os 303 & lqa oJ2023

¶71

¶72

In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.Pl to A6 were marked in MVOP No.392 of 2O2O; and in MVOP No.12 of 2O2 1, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to A9 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, RWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.Bl which is the insurance policy was marked in both MVOPs.

¶73

The Tribunal, on conclusion of the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties, awarded the following compensation amount in respective O.Ps.

¶74

Sl.No.	O.P.No.	Compensation
		amourrtawarded
I	392 of2O2O	Rs.18,79,O90/
2	12of 2O2l	Rs.l0,20,OOO/'

¶75

I 1. The Tribunal had awarded inLerest at the rate of 60/o per annum from the date of the petitions till the date of realization. The Tribunal further directed the respondent No.3-insurance company to pay the above said awarded compensation amount and later the insurance company is entitled to recover the same from the respondents 1 and 2, who are the appellants herein.

¶76

During the course of hearing of appeals, thc grounds of challenge by the appellants in the present appeals are tLrat the Tribunal had gravely erred in awarding the above compensation amount, payable by the Sth respondent-insurance company herein '\

¶77

_--

¶78

LNA,J M.1(:.tlA .\os J03 & Jlt of)021

¶79

¶80

and later to recover the same from the appellants even though the criminal case filed against the driver of the crime vehicle was acquitted by the Hon'ble Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangaon vide judgment dated, 12.12.2002 and the said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. The Tribunal also erred in fastening the liability on the appellants herein even though respondents I to 4 herein have clearly stated in their claims petitions that respondent no.5insurance herein is liable to pay compensation and the said finding of the learned Tribunal is contrary to the pleadings and evidence on behalf o[ respondents and that too acquittal of the criminal case against the driver of the crime vehicle.

¶81

The learned counsel for appellants further submitted that Hon'ble Tribunal without framing an issue whether the appellant no.1 herein was driving the Innova Car bearing No.TS-03-EV-4668 in a drunken condition, gravely erred in hnding that driver lost consciousness and his scnscs wcrc infcrrcd intoxicated at the time o[ accident in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the same

¶82

He further submitted that hnding of learned Hon,ble Tribunal that appellant no.1 herein drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in a drunken state is not supported b5, qry cogent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that

¶83

l_,.1.J !,IACMA ,:os J03 & l)J af202l

¶84

¶85

appellants herein violated the terms and conditions of^{the policy} and 5h respondent-insurance company has to^{pay the awarded} compensation amounts and recover the same lrom the appellants herein, which is contra-rJr to the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalfof the respondents 1 to 4 herein.

¶86

He further submitted that the Tribunal^gravely erredⁱⁿ taking the income of the deceased as Rs.lO,754 l- and Rs.10,000/in MVOP Nos.392 of 2O2O and 12 of 2021, respectively, merely on the basis of an unmarked memo and without any^justihcation evidencing monthly income of the deceased. In support of^the contention that income cannot be eslimated without any material, the learned counsel for appellants placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another^{vs. Jasbir} Kaur and othersl and New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,^{vs. Charlie} and another2,

¶87

Learned counsel for respondent No.S-insurance^company admitted the fact that crime vehicle was duly insured with^the insurance company as on the date of accident, but contended^that the insurance company is not Iiable to indemnify the^insuredas

¶88

¶89

' 2oo:^{ncr reoo}

¶90

'^{2oo5 ac.J :.t3t}

¶91

L|A J M,lCMA Nor 303 & 30t oJ)021

¶92

¶93

the driver o[ crime vehicle was driving the same under the influence of alcohol

¶94

l,earned counsel for 56 respondent submitted that the driver of the crime vehicle was charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 3O4-lI, 3O4-A, 3OB, 279 IpC and Section 18S of MV Act showing the driver consumed ethyl alcohol at the time of accident. He further submitted that when there was a violation of the terms and conditions of policy, insurance company is not liable to make any payment in respect of accident. He further submitted that since the insurance is in force as on the date of accident and the claimants are third parties, the insurance company is tiable to compensate them initially, later entitled to recover the same from the appellants. He submitted that Hon,ble Tribunal had rightly came to conclusion that insurance is liable to pay the compensation initially and then entitled to recover the same from the driver and ou,ner of the crime vehicle.

¶95

Learned counsel lor the 5rh respondent-insurance company relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid vs. Girivasan E.K. and others [OP (Mq No.646 ot 2Or4, dated 3O.O1.2O23].

¶96

\ /

¶97

I,N,1J ttACMA Nos.303 & 3ol of2023

¶98

¶99

Consideration :

¶100

With regard to the main contention raised by the learned counsel for appellants about fastening of the liability on the appellants, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record, held that the driver of the crime vehicle was driving it in a drunken state, amounts to violation o[ terms and conditions of Ex.Bl-policy by its owner. However, as per the conditions contained in Ex.Bl-policy, drunken drive exoneratc insurance company for personal accident cover of the owner and driver, but not the third parties. In the present cases, the alcohol percentage lound in the blood sample was 273 and under Section 185 of MV Act, the permissible limit is only 30 Mg for 10O ml. Considering the same, the Tribunal, by following the decision of Trallic Police Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda, popularly known as BMW Car, held that policy conditions were violated by the appellants and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation.

¶101

Further, the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount at the first instance and recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle in view of )

¶102

LN4,J MACMA Nos 303 & _101012023

¶103

¶104

the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Swaran Singh and others3,

¶105

In Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and othersa, the Hon,ble

¶106

Apex Court held as under:

¶107

'13.^Since the^reference to the larger Bench in^paruath.neni case [National^{InsuranceC-o.Ltd- v. Parvathneni,} (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 568 : (2OO9) 3 SCC (Cri) 9431 has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriatc case, presently the decision in Sutaran Singh case INationat^{Insurance Co. Ltd. v.} Swaran Singly⁽²⁰⁰⁴⁾ 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 7331 follorved in Laxmi Narain Dhut lNationat Insurance Co. Ltd. v. kumi Narain Dhu\ (2OO7l 3 SCC 7OO : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 1421 and other cases hold the held. The award passed by the Tribunal directrng the insurance company to pay the compensation amount a\,arded to the claimants and thereafter, recover thc same from thc owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance lvith the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh [Natronal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suaran Singly (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2OO4 SCC (Cri) 7331 and Laxmi Narain Dhut lNationat Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Nerain Dhut, l2OO7l3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) l42l cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with thc award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment lSho,manna v. Loxrnan, 2016 SCC Online Kar 69281 of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the o,,vner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored."

¶108

In Muhammed Rashed @ Rashid (supra), the Hon,ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, by following the decisions of Honble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamala & Otherss,

¶109

' {40a1 :^scc zsz

¶110

' 1r}rr1 n ,.. uro

¶111

' 1zoot1^{+ scc} :az

¶112

LNA,J MACMA Nos 303 &³⁰¹ oI2023

¶113

¶114

Oriental Insurance Company^{Limited v.Nanjappan6and the} decision of Hon'ble^{DivisionBench of this Court in Bajaj Allianz} General Insurance Co.Ltd. rep. by its^{DePuty Manager} {Lega[^v'

¶115

Manju Devi and othersT, held as^under:

¶116

"22. ExL.Bl, the insurance Policy^{stiputatesthe condition that} the insurance company shall^{notbe liable to make any payment} in respect of arly accidental^{loss or damage suffered whilstthe} insured or any^person driving^{the vehicle with the knowledge and} consent of the insured is under^{the influence of intoxicating liquor} or drugs. Since the offending^{vehicle was validly insured withthe} 3',t respondent insurance^{companyand the appellant,/claimant is} a third party, the company^{is liableto compensatehiminitiaUy,} but the company is^{eligibleto recover thesamefromrespondents} I and 2."

¶117

With regard to the further^{contentionof the learned counsel} for appellants that even though^{there was a clear acquittal in} criminal case filed against the^{driver of the crime vehicle,the} Tribunal fastening the liability^{on the driverand owner o[ the crime} vehicle on the ground of driver^{of the crime vehicle driventhe same} under the influence of the^{alcoholat the time of the accident,is} erroneous and contrary to law.

¶118

On perusal of record, it^{appearsthat the Hon'bleTribunal} passed ord.ers on O6. 12.2022,^{whereas the AssistantSessions} Judge, Jangaon,^passed the^{judgment acquitting the driver of the} crime vehicle involved in the accident, on^{12.12.2022.Th-e present} appeals are hled on 06.03.2023.^{Therefore,the contentionof}

¶119

"^{yzoo+1t3 scc zza}

¶120

7 2q14 SCC Online AP 232

¶121

LNA,J !.4t: M!^!''ot 303 & 30a of2023

¶122

¶123

learned counsel for appellants that even though the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., appellant no.1 herein, acquitted in criminal case, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellant no. I as RW. 1 that he was prepared to prove his non_involvement in the alleged accident is not tenable.

¶124

Provision of claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act undoubtedly is a welfare legislation. It would not be the requirement of law to have the standard o[ evidence and proof strictly in terms of the provisions of the Indian trvidence Act. There is a great element of the preponderance of probabitity which has to be applied in some cases, more particularly, in fatal accident cases. Therefore, mere acquittal in accidental case is not a ground to exonerate the driver of the crime vehicle from civil liability, since offence has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, there is no merit on the said contention.

¶125

In the light of above decisions, in considered view of this Court, the Ho'n'ble Tribunal had rightly fasrened the liability on the appellants and further directed the insurance company to first satisfy the compensation amount awarded by Tribunal and thereafter, the insurance company is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., appellants herein.

¶126

¶127

LNA,J LIACLIA Nos.30l & 301of202J

¶128

¶129

27 . With regard to the quantum of monthly^{income of the} deceased, insofar as the income of the deceased in MACMA^No.303 of 2023 is concerned, claimants contended that deceased^wasan agriculturist and earning Rs. 10,00,0O0/- per annum.^However, claimants failed to place any material evidencing that deceased^has engaged in an agricultural activit5r and was earning Rs. 10,00,OOO/per annum or any document evidencing ownership of agricultural land. The Tribunal had taken Rs. IO,0O0/- per month as monthly income of the deceased without there being any evidence,^proof on record, which is unsustainable and therefore, requires modification.

¶130

2a. [nsofar as the income of the deceased in MACMA No.3O4^of 2023 is concerned, claimants contended that deceased^was working as conslruction worker/mason work and^placed on^record the Registration Card vide No.WAR/ LIN/ALO.THOR-2805^issued by Andhra Pradesh Building and Other Construction^Workers Welfare Board, wherein the annual income of the deceased^was shown as Rs.SO,OOO/-. However, the Tribunal considered^the monthly income as Rs. 10,754/- basing on memo, which^is contrary to certificate issued by the above Welfare^Boardand further, without any^justihcation evidencing monthly income of^the ,

¶131

L,,1 J tlA('M.-t \os 103 & 101 at )023

¶132

¶133

deceased. Therefore, the same is not sustainable and it requires modification.

¶134

[n Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Rayal Sundaram Alliance fnsurance Company Limiteda, the Hon,ble Apex Court at

¶135

paragraphs- 13 & 14 observed that,

¶136

"13..........appellant was aged about 35 years and was rvorking as coolie and was earning Rs.4,5OO/ per month at the time of the accident.

¶137

The appettant was rvorking as a coolie and, therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of ant. othcr evidence contrary to the claim made b,y the claimant, in our vie\., in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have acceptcd the claim of the claimant.

¶138

" I4. . . . . . . . . . the Honlcle Apex Court observed that the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. [t depends on the [acts of each case. [n a given case, if the claim madc is so exorbitant or it the claim made is contrary to ground rcalities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may inciude the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time."

¶139

The Motor Vehicle Act is a bcnchcial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), this Court is of the considered view that MACT had rightly taken the monthly salary o[ the deceased as Rs.4,5OO/-, even in the absence of any evidence.

(2011) 13 SCC 236

LNA,J MACMA Nos.l03 &³⁰⁴ of202J

¶144

¶145

) )

¶146

31 . In view of the above decision, the^{monthlyincome of the} deceased in both the appeals can be taken as^Rs.4,500/-.

¶147

With regard to award of compensation^{towardsfuture} prospects, the claimants in MACMA No.3O3 of 2023 are^entitledto addition of lOo/o of the income of the deceased^{(since the deceased} was self-employed and was aged 59^years as^{on the date of} accident) and the claimants in MACMA No.3O4^{of 2023 are entitled} to addition of 4Oo/o^(since the deceased^{was self-employedand was} aged 30 years as on the date of accident) o[^{the income of the} deceased towards loss of future^{prospectsin view of paragraph-} 59.4 of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in^{NationalInsurance}

¶148

Company Lirnited vs. Pranay Sethi and otherse.^Further,the claimants are entitled to Rs.4O,OOO/-^{each toward consortium,} Rs. i5,0OO/- towards Ioss of estate and^{Rs. 15,OO0/- towards} funeral expenses and also Rs.15,OO0/- towards^{transportcharges.}

¶149

ln view of the above, the compensation^{amounts are}

¶150

recalculated as under:

¶151

sl. No.	Head	Compensationawarded inMACMA No.3O3of 2023	coBperlsation aesrded itrMACMA No.3O4of 2()23
I	lncome	Rs.54,OOO/-{Rs.4,5OO/ permonth)	Rs.54,OOO/-^(Rs-a,5OO/- rmonth
2	Futureprospects	Rs,s,4OOl-(i.e., theincomc) lO%of	Rs.2l,600/-(i.e.,^4OYoof theincome
3	Deduction personal towards expenses	Rs.r4,8SO/-(i.e.,onc- fourthofRs.54,OOO/-⁺ Rs.5,400/-)	Rs-r8,9OO/-(i.e.,one- fourthofRs.54,0OO/-⁺ Rs.21 600

¶152

'1zorz1^{16 scc oso}

¶153

t. .1._t tl.Ic.\r'A .\os 303 & t01 of )021

¶154

¶155

Y I

¶156

4 5	TotalIncome Multiplier	Rs..14,550/- (i.e, Rs.54,O0O/- Rs.5,4O0 Rs.14,850 o9	t7 Rs.s (r.e Rs.21	6.7OOl- , Rs.54,000/ 00 Rs.18,	9O0
6 7	l,oss of dependency Compensationfo. lossofconsortium Rs.4O 000 -x4	(i.e., Rs. I,6O,0OO/- Rs.4,OO,95O/- Rs.44,550/-x9l	Rs.9 Rs.5 Rs.1	,63,70Ol- 6,7OOl-xl7) ,6O,OOO/-	(i.e.,
8	l-oss of es[ate	Rs.15,OOO/-	Rs.	r5,OOO/-
9	Funeralexpenses	Rs.15,OOO/-	Rs.	I5,OOO/-
to	Transportcharges	Rs.15,OOO/-	Rs.	15,OOO/-
	Total tobe compensatlon id	Rs.6,05,950/-	Rs-l1	,68,7OOl-

¶157

In the result, the Appeals are partly allowed and the impugned awards of the Tribunal insofar as compensatron amounts are concerned, are modified. Insolar as direction of the Tribunal directing the respondent No.5-insurance company to first pay and thereafter recover the compensation amount from the driver and owner of the crime vchicle i.c., appellants, is affirmed. The above compensation amounts sha[[ carry interest (@ 60/o per annum from the date of the claim petitions till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶158

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

¶159

AssS?/Afivi?33+iiR //TRUE COPY//

¶160

To, SECTION OFFICER ',. The Chairman, Motor Acc , lrnn:ln^{1*,jh ;;;;;[:iffi.,r,r.} rribunat-cum- principal District Judse, i :1l" 99^{ro Sri T Mahender Rao,} Advocate IOpUCt ; 315 33 3 3;: fi:fl:';il-"t^{nJ-Jl'iop"uzr} c. rwo cD copies tshna Reddy, Advocate [6puc1

SECTION OFFICER

ADK KMS k&'

.t ,,)

HIGH COURT

LNA, J

DATED: 1211212023

COMMON JUDGMENT

i':. r, a
Ir'
':i ! ..t,

¶169

1 HE SI4 14:
.))f 0 5 tlAP 2021 tv O z
Ir!.qtta ,,/

¶170

MACMA.No.303 AND 304 of 2023

¶171

!
' iir-,t
it {:

¶172

PARTLY ALLOWING BOTH MACMA'S WITHOUT COSTS

¶173

?-')-\
v s<br>^*

¶174

¶175

IN THE HIGH COURT^FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶176

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶177

PRESENT

¶178

:.1 !':i1rli. '.#' .]i,.:r: .'t-,: , -,

¶179

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE,LAXMI^{NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶180

MAC MA NO: 303 OF²⁰²³

¶181

Between:

¶182

1. 2.	Naveetha Rao Takkallapally, S/o.^{VenkateshwarRao,Agedabout 30years,} Occ.Business.Rl/o.^{H.No.'24-1'21111,N€ar R.E.o Petrol Pump,Pragathi} Nagar, Durga Road,^{Hanamkonda,WarangalUrban District} TakkallapallyViiaya,Wo.^Venkateshwar!qo.fged^about-49- years, Occ.Busineds,Ryo.H.ruo.^{24-1-21111,Near R.E.0Petrol Pump,7-Pragathi} Nagar, Durga Road, Hanamkonda,Warangal^{Urban District}
AND 1 2	...Appellants/RespondentNos.1 &² Manegalla Laxmi, W/o- Late Narsaiah,Aged^{about40years,OccHousewife} ManegallaNagaraju,S/o. Late^{Narsaiah,Aged about29years,Occ.} Agriculture.
3.	Manegalla Prasad, S/o. late.^{NarsaiahAged about.l1 years,Occ.Student} (Minor)
4.	ManeqallaVaishnavi,D/o. Late Narsaiah,^{Aged about 8 years,} Occ.Siudent.(Minor)^{(RespondentNos. 3}anil^{4 being minorsarerep. by their} Mother and nbtural^guardiantherespondent^{No.1 herein) Alla1eRl/o} Pembarthy Villageo'fJangaonRevehue^{Mandal andJangaonDistrict.} ...Respondents/Petitioners
5. and d the Janga	The Manager SBI General lnsurance Co.Ltd.,^{Rep. by its Branch Manager,.} 0/o.3rdFl6or, Ozone CommercialComplex,^{H.No. 6-3-66/1,}Panjagutta^Main Road, Hyderabad. 500032. ...RespondenURespondentNo.3 AppealfiledUnderSection173ofMotor VehiclesAct,^{1988 against the Award} ecreeinM.V.O.P.No.12ot2O21dated06-12-2022onlhefileof the Courtof Chairman,MotorAccident ClaimsTribunal-cum-PrincipalDistrict^Judge, on.	1i ,)',I $;: i
ORD appe	ER:Thisappeal comingon forhearingandupon^perusingthe^{grounds of} al,theAwardandDecreeoftheLower Courtand thematerial^papersinthe

_ 5-,{,

/ I

Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Mahender Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri S Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 4 and Sri A Rama Krishna Reddy, for the Respondent No.S. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is parfly allowed; 2. That the impugned award of the Tribunal insofar as Compensation amount be and hereby is modified from Rs.1 0,20,0001 to Rs.6,05,950/- ; 3. That the Tribunal directing the Respondent No.5 lnsurance Company to first pay and thereafter recover the compensation amount from the driver and owner of the crime vehicle i.e., appellants be and hereby is confirmed; 4. That the compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization 5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other respects, and 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSrsrANtrEGtsrRAR //TRUE COPY// \y SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- principal District Judge, Jangaon 2. Two CD Copies ADK KMS $,if

,' '*

{

i* ,

' ?

ffi

HIGH COURT

LNA, J

'J. :. *.r{

DATED: 1211212023

*L rt 6 L(

DECREE

MACMA.No.303 of 2023

ti' ffi

.i. :IF l! ffi

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

!,i
t

ffi

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶206

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY^{OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶207

PRESENT

¶208

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE,LAXMI^{NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶209

,, ,-.. :.li .r .
iixd. i,
ffir-?'

¶210

MACMA NO: 304 OF 2023

¶211

Between:

¶212

Navaneetha Rao Takkallapally, S/o. Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 30
.,:1 : ..1
years, Occ.Business, Rl/o. H.No. 24-1-21 1/1, Near R.E.o_ Pe1rcl Pump' .,' t
Pragathi Nagar, Durga Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District. Gr '& td;,")'l
years,. Occ. #ffiil {.,'l,
2. Takkallapally Vijaya, Wo. VenkateshwarRao, / Aged abolt -49 ';i ir':,t
Businesi, Rio. H.No. 24-1-21111, Near R.E.0 Petrol Pump, 7- Pragathi Nagar, ?,'{ I
Durga Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District, 'i
...Appellants/Respondent Nos.l & 2

¶213

AND

¶214

Thipparapu Sunitha, Wo. Late Narsaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ.
Housewife.
2. Thipparapu Pallavi, D/o. Late Narsaiah, Aged about 17 years, Occ. Student.
(Minor)
3. Thipparapu Devaiah, S/o- late. Ramaiah Aged about- 57 years,Occ.
Agriculture.
4. Thipparapu Laxmi, Wo. Devaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Housewife. .
(Rrjspondent No. 2 being minor is rep. by her lirlother qnd natural guardian the
iespondent No.1 hereinlAll are R/o. Kallem Village of Lingala Ghanpur
,,r$ :
Mandal of Jangaon District.
...Respondents/Petitioners ;i+l i
5. The Manager SBI General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, .l
0/o. 3rd Floor, Ozone Commercial Complex, H.No. 6-3-66/1, Panjagulta Main
Road, Hyderabad. 500032
...RespondenURespondent No.3 ,!
Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,'1988 against the Award
and decree in M.V.O.P.No.392 of 2O2o dated 06-12-2022 on the file of the Court of
the Chairman, lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge,
Jangaon.

, . J:{
l ids

,. ffi

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T lvlahender Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No_5 and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

¶219

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶220

. id. r.:J. j . l.t ii I

¶221

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed;

¶222

That the impugned award of the Tribunal insofar as Compensation amount be and hereby is modified from Rs.18,79,0901 Rs.11,68,7001 ;

¶223

That the Tribunal directing the Respondent No.S lnsurance Company to first pay and thereafter recover the compensation amount from the driver and owner of the crime vehicle i.e., appellants be and hereby is confirmed;

¶224