Allowed

Smt. Amribai and Another v. Akheel Ahmed and Anothger

Telangana HC27 Feb 2025MACMA/1983/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents of a salesman killed in a lorry accident sought enhancement of the Tribunal's compensation award. The High Court fixed notional income at Rs.4,500 per month, added 40% future prospects, applied multiplier 18, awarded conventional heads, and enhanced compensation to Rs.7,13,400 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,34,000 to Rs.7,13,400 with interest @7.5% p.a., payable jointly and severally by respondents 1 & 2 within 2 months.

Smt. Amribai and Another Vs Akheel Ahmed and Anothger — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

i l -tr

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1983 OF 2O1O

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.NO. 58 of 2009 daied.26.07.2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-^{Principal District Judge,} Sangareddy.

¶9

'B"t,,""n

¶10

Smt. Amribai, Wo. Deepla Naik, aged 42^years, Occ: Labour.

¶11

Deepla Naik, S/o. Somla, aged 44^years, Occ: Labour.

¶12

Both R/o. Hoti-B Thanda, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District.

¶13

...APPELLANTS/CLAI MANTS

¶14

AND

¶15

't. Akheel Ahmed, S/o. Jameel Ahmed, aged Major, Occ: Business and Owner of Lorry No. MH 04-C-3924 Rl/o. Hundi (V), Humnabad Tq. Bidar District Karnataka.

¶16

The New lndia Assurance Comapany Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager Sangli Division at Kamgar Bhavan, M.G.Road at Sangli, Maharashtra State.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. PALLE SRIHARINATH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Appeared

¶21

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

,:rt:

¶23

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

¶24

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1983 OF 201O

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for sl-rort, the Tribunal), i;-r O.P.No.SS of 2OO9, dated 26.07.2OlO, the claim petitioners in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as theS' werc arrayed before the Iearned Tribur-ra1

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the parents of Late Rathod^()opal (hereinaf[er be rclerred as^'the deceased) filed a petition under Scction 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compenszrlion of Rs.7,0O,00O/ - c,n account of the death of their deceased son-Rathod Gopal in zr motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.11.2OO8. It is stated by the petitioners that on 08.1 1.2008 at about 10.00 P.X4., when the deceased was procecding towards Dilsukhnagar, in t.l're meantime, one Lorry Bearing No.MH-04-C-3924, driven by its clriver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from L.B.Nrtgar side and dashed against the deceased and one Motorcycle bcaring No.AP-

¶29

f I

¶30

¶31

MGP,J M.A.C.M,A.No.1983 of 2010

¶32

11-5-8954, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment at Osmania General Hospital.

¶33

Based on a complaint, Police of Saroornagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 1353 ol 20O8, under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC

¶34

It is stated by the petitioners that belore the accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and used to work as a Salesman in a Private Firm at Hyderabad and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month and contribute the same towards maintenance of their family. Due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and rvere suffering with mental pain and agony and scvere hardship. Hcnce, filed claim petition seeking compensation seeking compensation against the respondents 1& 2.

¶35

Before the Tribunal, respondent No. l/owner of the lnrry bearing No. MH -O4-C-3924, remained ex-parte

¶36

Respondent No.2/New India Assurance Company hled its counter denying the averments made in the claim^petition including, rash and negligent act on part of the driver of the crime I-r:rry, age, occupation, income and relationship of the deceased with the petitioners and contended that though the driver of the crime [,orry do not possess valid and effective^driving license at the

¶37

\ 1"

¶38

¶39

MGP,J M.A.(.M.A.No.1983 0f 2010

¶40

'a.ftatl
./

¶41

time of accidcnt, but the owner of the^{said Lorry} had^willfully handed over his vehicle to him and committed brear:h of terms and conditions of policy, as such, they are not liablt to pay any compensation :rnd moreover, the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

¶42

Based on the pieadings made by both thc parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues frrr conducting trial:

¶43

i. WLether the accident ocanrred due to the rash and negligent diuing of the diuer of the crime uehicle?

¶44

ii. Whcther the petitioners are entitled for compcnsalion? If so, at Luhat quantum and from whom?

¶45

iii. To uhat relieP

¶46

Before thc Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioncrs, PWs I & 2 were examined and trxs.A1 to A6 were markecl. On behalf of respondents no oral was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policl' was marked with consent.

¶47

After considering the oral and documenrary evidence available on record, the iearned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by au,arding compensation of Rs.2,ll4,OOO/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5o/o per annum lrom the date of petition till the date of realization. Having not satisfie<l with the

MGP,I M.A.C. M.A.No.1983 of 2010

¶52

.l T

¶53

said compensation amount,^{the claimants preferred the present} Appeal seeking enhancement^{of same.}

¶54

Heard arguments submitted^{by Sri Palle Sriharinath,learned} counsel for the appellants^{as well as Sri A.RamakrishnaReddy,} learned Standing Counsel^{representingrespondent No.2/lnsurance} Company. Perused the^record.

¶55

The contentions of^{the learned counsel for Appellantsas} stated in the grounds^{of Appealare that the learned Tribunaiought} to have taken the^{monthly income of the dcceased} @^Rs.9,000/- instead of Rs.3,000/-. lrarned^{counsel also contendedthat the} Tribunal erred in applying^{multiplierby consideringthe mother's} age instead of the deceased's^{age, it also ought to have granted} amounts under^{losso[ estate and mentalagony and henceprayed} to allow the Appeal^{by cnhancing the compensationamount'}

¶56

On the other^{hand, Iearned counsel for the respondent} that thc learned^Tribunal, No.2/Insurance^{Company contended} after considering^{all theaspects,} had awarded reasonable compensation^{for whichinterferenceof this Courtis unwarranted}

¶57

Now the^point that arises^{for delerminationis,}

¶58

Wether the findings of the learned^Tribunal requires interkrence of this Court?

¶59

¶60

MGP,J M.A.a.M.A No.1983 of 2010

¶61

¶62

POINT:-

¶63

Since there is no dispute about the manner ol accident and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no necessit5r to again decide the above said aspccts. The present Appeal has been hled b.1 the claimants only with regard to enhancement of compensation.

¶64

lrarned counsel for the appellants contended that though it is stated by the petitioners in their evidence that thc deceased used to earn Rs.9,00O/ per month by working as a Salesman in a private firm at Hyderabad, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the same and hxed his notional income @ Rs.3,000/, per month and had not considered awarding future prospccts to the established income of the deceased.

¶65

In this regard, it is pertinent to state that exccpt relytng upon the documenls markcd under Exs.A 1 to A6 r,r,hich are certified copies of trIR, charge sheet, scene of panchanama, inquest report, MVI report and post-mortem examination report, the petitioners failed to produce any documentary proof evidencing that the deceased used to work as Salesman and earning Rs.9,OOO/- per month. Hence, the learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.3,0O0/- per month. Howcver

MGP,I M.A.C.M.A.No.1983^{of 2010}

¶70

l I ! I II I I I I

¶71

this Court,^{considering the year of accidentand age ofthe} deceased,^{the said amountappears to be less, hence inclinedto} interfere with the^{same by relyingupon thc judgment of the} Hon'ble Apex Court^{in Latha Wadhwa vs' State of Biharl wherein'} it is held that^{even though there is no proof of incomeand} earnings, the^{income can be reasonably estimated Hence' taking} into consideration,.the^{avocation of the deceased' date of accident} and age of the^{deceased, this Court hereby fix the incomeof the} deceased @^Rs.a,500/- Per^month'

¶72

A perusal^{of thc impugnedjudgmentshows that the learned} Tribunal faiied^{to awardfutureprospectsto the established income} of the deceased.^{Hence,this Court,by considering the judgment of} the Hon'b1e^{ApexCourt in National Insurance Co'Ltd'Vs'Pranag} Sethiz , hereby^{add4OVotowards future prospectsto the income of} thedeceasedsincethedeceasedbeing25yearsoldatthetimeof accident and^{is self-employed'Thus,the net monthly incomeof the} deceased comes^{to Rs.6,3OO/-Sincethe deceased being Bachelor'} 5o% is deducted^{towards his personalexpenses' Then his net} monthly^{income comes to Rs'3,150/-and [he annual income} comes to^{Rs.37,8O0/-. After applying relevantmultiplier '18" the} total loss of^{dependency would come to Rs'6'80'4O0/-'Further' the}

¶73

¶74

'^{(zoot) 8 scctgz} 1l2oL7 (6) r7o SC)

¶75

I \

¶76

¶77

MGP,J M.A. C.M.A. No.1983 of 2010

¶78

!,_F.a-.!i!ar..'q!, ' : 'F.'".r' | -/' '

¶79

appeilants are also awarded a sum of Rs.33,000/-^towards conventional heads as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.. Vs.Pranag Sethi & others (2O17 ACJ 27OO). Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,13,400/-.

¶80

aI i

¶81

Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim amount, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and others^: wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that compensation can be granted more than the claim madc based on cogent and convincing evidence.

¶82

In view of thc above discussion and keeping in view the settled principle of la'"v laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court deems fit and proper to aliow the Appeal.

¶83

In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tf ibunal from Rs.2,3a,O00/ to Rs.7,13,400/ which shall carry interest @ 7 .5% p.a. from the date of petition ti1l the date of realization payable by respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. The respondents Nos.1 &

¶84

'AIR^2oo3 sc 674

¶85

¶86

MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1983 of 2010

¶87

¶88

2 are directed to deposit the said compensation^{within a periodof 2} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^{judgment.Upon} such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to^{withdraw the} same as per the apportionment madc by the.learned^{Tribunal by} paying deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶89

Miscellaneous petitions^pending,if any,^{shall stand closed}

¶90

Sd/. P PADMANABHA EDDY ASSISTANT^REGSTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman, Motor^{Accident claimsTribunal-cum- Principal DistrictJudge,} Sangareddy.^{(With Records if anY)}

¶95

2 o;;tC to'silt.^{PALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocate[oPU-c-]} ^.

¶96

e o;; cc i"^{sni. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY' Advocate[oPUC]} 4 Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710212025

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1983 ot 2010

¶103

i-
i,
iJ
')', itll,l ?$6 :f i
,-;i- ll-.-..,'.,
n - (\ 'r -.: ';:'
'l .i ':''-' --':1'
' --,_:: .;--:--,.-. .: , '

¶104

ALLOWED

¶105

¶106

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

¶107

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY^{SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶108

PRESENT

¶109

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶110

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 1983 0F 2010}

¶111

Between:

¶112

Smt. Amribai, Wo. Deepla^{Naik, aged42 yea$,Occ: Labour'}

¶113

Deepla Naik, S/o.^{Somla, aged44 years, Occ: Labour'}

¶114

Both R/o. Hoti-B Thanda,^{Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District'}

¶115

¶116

...APPELLANTS/cLAIMANTS

¶117

AND

¶118

. '1 . Akheel Ahmed, S/o. Jameel Ahmed, aged Major, Occ: Business and Owner^of L"irv-tt"- MH oa-C-gsz+^{R/o Hundi (V)'' Humnabad Tq Bidar District} Karnataka.

¶119

2_ The New lndia^{Assurance comapany Limited, Representedby_ its Divisional} - trianager Sangtl Division at 'Karigar Bhavan, M G Road at Sangli, Maharashtra State.

¶120

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶121

Appeal filed under Section^{173 of Motor vehiclesAct., againstthe Judgment} and decree, made^{in o.P.NO. 58 0f 2009dated.26.07.2010 0n the file of the} chairman, Motor^{Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Principal DistrictJudge,} Sangareddy.

¶122

This appeal coming on^{for hearing and upon perusingthe grounds of appeal,} the Judgment and^{Decree of the court below and the material papers in the MVOP} and upon hearing^{the arguments of sRl.PALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocatefor the} appellant and of^{sRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Counsel for the RespondentNo.2} and None appeaerd^{for the Respondent No'1.}

¶123

This Court doth^Order and Decree^{as follows:}

¶124

That the^{MotorAccidentcivil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed} by enhancing the compensation^{amount awardedby the Tribunal from Rs'}

¶125

¶126

2,34,0OO1- to Rs.7,13,400/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization^payable by the respondents¹ and 2 Jointly and Severally;

¶127

That the respondents No.1 and 2 be and hereby directed to deposit the said compensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶128

That on such deposit, the appellants/claimants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the same as per apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying deficit court fee;

¶129