The National insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.c.Usha Kumari — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

The National insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.c.Usha Kumari — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

M.A.C.M.A.No.3017 of 2017 (filed by the Insurance Company challenging quantum) partly allowed: compensation reduced from Rs.14,21,000/- to Rs.12,42,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization; M.A.C.M.A.No.1994 of 2018 (claimants' enhancement appeal) dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court? +2 more

Court's answer

There being no dispute regarding liability, the finding given by the Tribunal on liability holds good and does not require any interference by this Court.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal rightly assessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs.8,000/- (based on educational qualification Ex.A10 and partnership deed Ex.A5, the average pay packet of an entry-level BPO agent being Rs.7,000-8,000), which does not require any further interference.

Key takeaways

Future prospects reduced from 50% to 40%: per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, persons below 40 years who are self-employed are entitled to 40% addition; the specific nature of employment not being proved, the deceased was treated as self-employed. After 40% addition the net monthly income is Rs.11,200/-; deducting 50% towards personal expenses (deceased being a bachelor), net monthly income is Rs.5,600/- and annual income Rs.67,200/-; applying multiplier '18' (deceased aged 25 at the time of accident), total loss of earnings is Rs.12,09,600/-.ratio¶86
The Tribunal's conventional-head awards (Rs.1,00,000/- loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- funeral expenses) were found excessive; Rs.33,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads for the deceased being a bachelor, relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.ratio¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Smt. Justice M.G. Priyadarsini) disposing of cross-appeals against the award dated 19.07.2017 in MVOP.No.455 of 2014 (Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahabubnagar) arising from the death of Chinthapally Vamshi Vardhan Reddy (aged 25) on 07.03.2014, when DCM Van No.AP-23X-7048 came from behind at high speed and dashed his Yamaha FZ motorcycle No.AP-20-CA-3327 near Sutariguda lake, Medchal; Crime No.90 of 2014 u/S 304-A IPC. Tribunal had awarded Rs.14,21,000/- with 9% interest. Held: (i) monthly income of Rs.8,000/- correctly fixed, no interference; (ii) future prospects reduced from 50% to 40%, the deceased being self-employed and below 40 years, per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi; after 50% personal-expense deduction (bachelor), annual income Rs.67,200/-; multiplier '18' applied giving loss of earnings Rs.12,09,600/-; (iii) conventional heads reduced to Rs.33,000/-; (iv) total compensation reduced to Rs.12,42,600/-; (v) interest reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum per Rajesh and others v. Raibir singh and others; (vi) Tribunal's liability finding undisturbed. M.A.C.M.A.No.3017 of 2017 partly allowed; M.A.C.M.A.No.1994 of 2018 dismissed.

[^3253]

HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} MoNDAy,ll?3Eu:Effrs[$-+?4"-fltffi^unnv

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICEM'G'MNADARSINI} MOTO^{R AGCIOENTCIVILMISCEL} EOUS L NO: 301 7^{AND1994 0F 2018}

MOTO^{R ACCIDENT CIVILMISCE LLAN EOUSAPPEALNO:3017OF2017}

against^{the Jud} gment and Aooeal^{filed Under Section 173 of MotorVehicles} -Act file of^the Decree Principal^{dt.19.07'2017, District Judge -"'nfiloi"t'e""iaent p"*ii" rtltVOp'N9: Claims Tribunal 159-of 2014 at on Mahabthe} ubnagar.

Between:

The National^{insurance co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional. Manager, padinavathi} ColonY,^Mahabubnagar

...APPELLANT

AND

1 i::!ffLi[:.ri]iffi^{iiliH*ffiiff .$ff#tx?''i3:?R'""}

2 *!i{,i,,,J:?'fr^?,",il:i"n"'

g,:t,S::lAll;:3t"':fl "'XKgH'f;'ffi trilahabubnagar^District'

3 3ii!,f Tf^{ft ",(;3i"-irffi '#s,[iflglrrffi #'Y'^'J'Uifl ii;&"3"'} ilJ"iiil^{GttuoubnagarDistrict'}

4 i,,'ii,m,r;S,f Reo. bY^{the natwal guarole} li;gl,#m,[+3;#ti*,'f:t"' resPonhent.^No'1)

5 Itlmf hiJtiU'i-".3i3#kAf#ffiUffi^{:Y'ffi I;"'lJf ff HNoAP'23-} DC M^{D r ve r}

b mil-i**s;fl.[lqryiffi^{#r#F;F,: - i,.}

...RESPONDENTS

,v

/ l.A. NO:10F 2017(MACM AMP. NO:53 20 0F 20171

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit.fired in support of the peiitio;, it. nign court mav oe'pr*JJ'to qrgnt.sJSV_9f a, further prgcgg.qrlqs incruding execution or *re oiOeia-nJ;;;" dated 19.07.20'17 passed in MVop.No. +ss Jr zor+ on the fire of the prr. District Judge-cum- Motor Accidents craims Tribunar aiMahabubnasr,. ;undins oi;pi;"1 of the main MACMA.

Counsel forthe Appeilant: SRI RAJ KUMAR GRANDHI

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K VENKATA RAM REDDY

MO RACC IDENT CIVI L MISCELLA NEOUS APPEAL NO :1994 0F 2018

Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicres Act against the order and Decree d1.19.o7.2o12, passed in MVop. No. qss ot zoli'on the fire ot tne prin-cip-ar District Judge -cum- Motor Accident craims Tribunar at Mahabubnag"i.^{- ' "} '-'"'

Between:

SMT.C.USHA KUMAR|, W/o C Sudarshan Reddy, Age_42 years, OccHousewife,(mother of deceased )

C. Sudarshan Reddy, S/o Bheem Reddy, Age_ 52 yeas, Occ_ Teacher,

C. Siri Chandana, D/o C. Sudarshan Reddy, Age_ .17 years, Occ_ Student,

C. Sankirthana, s/o C S-udarshan Reddy, Age_ 13 years, Occ_ Student. (Appellants N..3 and 4. are minors having uiderguardian of their natural mother of smt C Usha Kumari Appe,arr M ii;;;i.) Ati;;e ir;^ii.N[..i6] ,Ol"r,, t" Cotony, near W Tower,^'Xorgi ,iitrg" ini Mandat, Mahabubnagar

...APPELLANTS

AND

KUKKALA LAXMAN. S/o^Sathaiah, age-major, ownerotthe DCM No.Ap_23x-7o48. Rio H.No.7_39, seetnaranipairy, Gil,": warangii, Mi;k,.X.p. -"

The National lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Padmavathi Cotony, Mahabr'On"6ai.^"

S. flu.fa.tlgr1Vana, S/oChandraiah, age_65 years, Occ_DCM driver, R/o H.No. 19-1-416. Doodbowri, Hvderabad. rForicv'r.ros-szzooirrso-soiil66iiiji,liio from 30-07-201 3to 29-07-2014)

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel forthe Appeilants: SRt K VENKATA RAM REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAJ KUMAR GRANDHI

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

! ? ij i I i I i I

/

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT' JUSTICE M'G'PRTYADARSINI} M.A.^{c.M.A.No.3O17 0F20L7} AND 94 0F^20La M.A.C .M.4.^No.19

COMM^{ON JUDGMENT:}

These two^{appeals are being disposed of by this co{nrnon} judgment since^{M'A'C'M'A'No3017 of 2Ol7} '^{frledby ttre Insurance} Company^{challenging the quantum of compensation awarded and} M.A.C.M.A^{No.1994of 2Ol8 frledby the claim petitioners seeking} enhancement^{of compensation' both are directed against the very} dated^{lg.O7.2Ol7Passed} 1n same^{order anddecree} file of the^{Court of PrinciPal} M.V.O.P.No.455^{ot 2O14' on the} Accidents^{ClaimsTribunal'} District^{Judge -cum-Molor} Mahabubnagar

For the^{sake o[ convenience'the parties hereinafter be} referred^{as they werearrayed before the learned Tnbunal} 3 Thc [acts^{of the case in briet are that the petitioners' who are} ot Chinthapally^{Vamshi VardhanReddy} the^{parents and sisters} to as "the^{deceased"),filed a Petition} (hereinalte^{rbe referred} of Rs.2O,OO,OOO/-^{for the death of the} claiming^comPensation deceased^{in a motor vehiclc accidentthat occurred on O7'03'2O 14'} As stated.^{by the petitioners' on OT 'O3 '2014 ' whenthe deceased} and his^{ft'icnd were Proceedingto Hitam College, Medchalon}

2

MGP,J MACMA.No.:lO17of 2017and MACMA_No.1994 of 2Ot8

Yamaha FZ motorcycle bearing No.Ap_2O_CA_ 3327 inorder to drop his friend at the said college and when they reached Sutariguda lake, one I)CM Van bearing No.Ap_23X_7O48 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased along with his friend fell down and having sustained }{ead injury, the deceased d;ed on the spot.

Based on the complaint given by the deceased friend Sri Naresh Kunrar, police of Medchal police Station registered a case in Crime No.9O of 2OL4under Secrion 304_A IpC.

It is fi:rther stated by the petitioners that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and had completed B.Sc Nursing ald used to run business of B.p.O. Services, Software Solutions, Health Care Hospitalities, under thc name and style of M/s.VAMNAfi, situated at Kamalanagar, Hyderabad, and used to earn Rs. lS,O00/_ per month. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread winner in the family and it is becoming difficult for thcm to eke out their liveiihood. As respondents being the owner, insurer and driver of the crime vehicle DCM /an bearing No.Ap-23_X_704g, rhey all are jointly and severajly liable to pay compensatlon.

t

3

AiIGP,' MICMA" t{o.3017^{o{2017 and} MACMA.No.l99{^of201t

Respondent^{No. l/Owner of DCM Van frled his counter} admitting the^{involvementof crime vehicle in the accident and} stated that^{he himselfsurrenderedhis vehicle to th€ policestation} and contended^{that as the vehicle was insuredwith respondent} No.2, therefore,^{respondentNo 2alone isliable topay} compensation^{and that the compensation claimedis excess and} exorbitant^{and prayedto dismiss the claim againstit'}

Respondent^{No.2/Insurance Company frled itscounter} denying the^{occurrenceofaccident, involvementof vehicle' age ald} earnings of^{the deceased and contendedthat the driver of the} crime vehicle^{do not possesvalid drivinglicenseand the petitioners} and respondent^{No.1 got colluded andhled a falsecase for claiming} compensation^{and therelore prayed to dismiss the claim against it'}

Respondent^{No.3/Driver of the crime vehicle did not choose} to hle any^{counterbelore the Tribunal'}

Based on^{[hc above pleadings,the learned Tribunal had} framed the^{follou'ingissues:}

(i) Whether tlrc^{accid'ent occuneddue to rash and} neghgent^{d-nuirq of the clriuer of DCM Van beaing} No.AP-23-X-7O4a?

are entitled to^claim

(ii) Wrcther^tLE Petitioners compensation?^{If so, to uhat amount?}

4

MGP,I MACMA.No.30l7 of 2017 and MACMA.No.t994 of 2Ot8

(iit) Whether respond.ents 1 t 3 are liable to pag

ampensation?

(ir.') To tahat reliej?

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the pedtioners, pWs 1 & 2 were exannined arrd Exs.Al to A14 were marked. On behalf of responderLts, RWI was examined and no documents were filed on their behalf.

The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, partly allowed the craim petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 14,21,OOO/- along with interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by Respondent Nos. I & 2 jointly and severally. The claim against respondent No.3 was dismissed by the Tribunal. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the claimants and Insurance C:ompany respectively.

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Grandhi, Iearned Standing Counsel for appeliant/ In surance Company in M.A_C.M,A.No.3O l7 ot 20L7 and Sri K.Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for appe anrs/claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No. 1994 of 20t8 Peruscd the record

The contentions of the learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M_A.No.30 l7 of 2017 are that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the

5

MGPJ MACMA.No^{3017of2Ol7 and} MACMA.No.1994^{of 2018}

I I I I i :

I I I I

deceascd @^{Rs.8,OOO/- per month in the absence of docurnentary} proof, erred in^{awarding5o7otowards future prospectsald also} erred in^{awardingexcess amountsunder conventionalheads and} also awarded^{excess interest @ 9o/o on the compensation arnount} and therefore^{prayed to allow the Appeal by settingaside the order} of the learned^Tribunal

On^{the other hand,[he contention of the learned Counselfor} Respondents/claimants/^{appellants in M A'C'M'A'No' 1994 of 2018} aretlratthelearnedTribunalfailedtoappreciatethedocumentary to A14 anci^{had not assessedthe} evidence filed^{underExs A i} income of^thedeceased properly and^{awardedmeager} compensation^{as against the claim amount and therefore prayed to} allow the^{appeal by enhancing the compensationamount'}

Now^{the point that emerge lor determtnatron ts'}

WhetlLer^{the order pasged bg the^leornedTibunal} O reqttires^{interkrence of this Court?} (it lftotn , tie claiman.ts^{are entitled for} enhance^{me nt of comP e ns ation?}

POINTS:-

Since^{there is no dispute about the occurrence of accident} and death^{of the deceased,there is no nccessity for this Courtto} once again^{delve into the said aspects The only point that has to} bedeterminedinthepresenttwoAppealsiSwithregardto quantum of^{comPensation'}

6

MGPJ MACMA.No lOtT ol2017and MACMA.No.1994 of 2018

A perusal of qualtum of compensation in the impugned judgment reveals that the Tribunal, considering the educational qualilication of the deceased under Ex.AlO and the partnership deed under Ex.AS executed between the deceased and his friend for carr1ring out partnership business, frxed his monthly income @ Rs.8,000/- per month. Since the average pay packet for an entry level Business process Outsourcing (BpO) agent is Rs.7,OOO/_ to Rs 8,OO0/-, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned rrib,nal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased (l Rs.8,OO0r- per month which do not require anv further interference.

Learned counsel representing Insurance Company also contended that the learned Tribunal erred tn awarding 50o/o towards future prospects though the occupation of the deceased was not permanent in nature. As per the judgmenr of the Hon,ble Apex Court in the case between Na.tional Insurance Co.Ltd..Vs.Pranag Sethll, ttre persons falling bclou, thc age of 4O vears and are self-employed, were entitred tor 4ovo addition torvards futu re prospects to the establishcd r.come of the deceased. As the petitioners failed to prove about specihc nature of employment of the deceased, this Court, considering the occupation of the deceased as self-employed and b 5'^relying upon '^{:o tz(6)} tzo sc

7

MGPJ MACMA-No-1017^of2017and MACMA^{No.1994 0f 2018}

I t Ii

Pranay^{Sethijudgrnent(citedsupra) is inclinedto interferewith the} finding^{of the Tribunal and hereby reducethe futureprospects} awarded^{by the Tribunal from 507o to 4Oo/o and calculate the} compensation.^{After additionof 4Oohto the established income of} the deceased,^{then th€ net monthly income comes to Rs'11'2OO/-'} Since^{the deceasedis a Bachelor'if 50% is d€ducted towardshis} personal^{expenses' then his net monthly income comesto} Rs.5,6OO/-^{and the annual income comes to Rs'67 '2OOl-' After} applylng^{multiptier '18' for the deccasedbeing 25 years old at the} timeofaccident,thenthetotallossofearningsonaccountofthe death of^{the deceasedwould come to Rs 12'09'6OO/-'}

Further,^{aperusal of the amountsawardedunder} conventional^{headsin the impugned judgment would show that the} learned^{Tribunalgrantedamounts oi Rs 1'OO'OOO/-towards loss of} Iove and^{a{fection,Rs'2SpOOi- towards funeral expenseswhich} this Court^{hnds it to be excessand is inclined to interfere with the} sarne by^{relyingupon the Judgmentof Hon'ble Apex Court in the} case of National^{InsuranceCo' Ltd' VgPranag Setht & othets} POfi^{ACiI 27OO) ard hereby awardRs'33'OOO/-towards} conventional^{headsfor the dcceascdbeingBachelor' Thus'ttte} claimants^{are entitled for a totalcompensationof Rs 12'42'6O0/-} \ whic(^{calculationis shown belorv:}

8

MACMA No 3Ol7 of rolYic:j MACMA_No.l99a of20lE

S.No. llaae of the lfead
AEount asarded
Amount awarded
the Tribuuat
this Court
I Monthly income
Rs.8,O00/-
2
Amount arrived
Rs. 12,O00,2-
futureafter addition ros ts of (5O% added Rs. 11,2O0l-
(reduced to 4O%o
Deduction of SOo/o Rs.6O0O
slnce Rs.5,60O/-
the
deceased being
bachelor
4 Loss of eaminss
Rs. r2,96,0O0/
calculated aftEr Rs. 12,09,600/
application of
Multi ier'18'
5 Conventional
Rs.l,25,O0O/-
heads Rs.33,OO0/
6 TOTAL
Rs. 14,21,OO0/_
coMPEXSATION Rs.12,42,600/ _
l

20 So far as interest on tre compensation amount is concerned, this court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon,bre Apex courr in Rajesh and others v. Raibir singh and others2, reduces the rate of interest arvarded by the Tribunal from 9oi, Lo 7.5o/,t per annum

, 20 13 ACJ t.+03 = 20 13 (4) ALT 35

I

t €P,, MACMA.No 3017 of^2017aM MAcMA.t{o.1994^{oI X)lE}

1

Since^{thereis no dispute regardingliability'the finding given} by the Tribunal^{holds good and which do not require any} interference^{bY this Court'}

In the^{result,M'A'C'M'A'No'3017 of 2Ol7ts partly-allowed} by reducing^{the compeasation along with rate of interestawarded} by the^{Tribunalfrom Rs'14,21'0OO/- to Rs' i2'42'6O0/-and} interest @^{7 .5% per a'nnum from the date of petitiontill the date of} of 20l8^{shall standdismissed} realization^{and M.A.C'M'A'No'1994} There shall^{be no order as to costs'}

oe Miscellaneous^{petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed}

SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGI^T R //TRUE^COPY" SECTI ICER

To,

1 The Principal^{District Judge -cum-tvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal} at Mahabubnagar'

OneCC^{to SRI' G RAJKUMARAdvocate [OPUC]}

One^{CC tO SRI.K VENI(ATARAM REDDYAdVOCAIETOPUC]}

4 Two CD^Cop'tes

TPI(/PSL

\qr

5 t i ,i , I

HIGH COURT

DATED:171021202s

::zj|?==-r
I i ir!: J j,4, i f"-i.,_
t
,)-
. ,'. itr
)-j ?'"
r25 Lfi?5

COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECREE

MACMA.No.301Z ol 2017 and

MACMA.No.1994 of 2018

MACMA.NI.3017 of 2O1t tS pARTLy ALLOWED MACMA.No.1994 of 2O1B tS D|SM|SSED

Lo .{'^
G
a

[³²⁵³¹

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} MONIOAY .'.- _ ,THE^{SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTY^FIVE

PRESENT

T}TE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

PEAL NO:^3017AND{994 oF 2018 TOR ACC^{IOENT CIVILMISCELLAN EOT.ISAP}

ELLANE^{OUS APPEAL NO:3017oF 2017} MOTO RAC^{CIDENT CIVIL MISC}

Between:

The Mtional^{insurance co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional' Manager' Padinavathi} ColonY,^{Mahabubnagar'}

...APPELLANT

AND

'l . Smt.C.Usha Kumari,'^{W /o C sudarshan Reddy' Aged about 42 years' Occ} Housewife,^{(mother ot o"!"""EiiH" ii rlo io:i t i.' Bc colonv'l"learTV} ilii;,'(;idi^{Viitage andManoai' Mar'abubnasarDis{rict'}

'Ri:11il:ffi^{iTiS6"YflP|trSff$'r;,f ,i'-ffi ffi Js?''iaffjJ:r*'} Mahabubnagar^District'

C. Sin Chandana,^{D/o Csudarshan Reddy' Aged about 17 Years' Occ} student,^{R/oH.No-2o-1t ilBC "C;]o;v' neii rV Tower' Kossi villageand} Mindal,' ManaOubnagar^District'

4.C.Sankirthana,S/oC.SudarshanReddy,Ag4..,lborrtl3vears,occStudent. R/o^{H.No.20-1 .i::Hiilto"v''N.ea-1r!rower'o-KosgiVillageand} tri"T"i,nrln"uuun,o,'bffi ReP.^{bY the naturalguar} ii:,?'f S{l'""S'.1il:,1$f .fl ilffi fJ* resPondent.^No.1)'

5.KukkalaLaxman,S/oSathaiah'AgeMajor.occowneroftheDCMM.AP-23. x-7044,^{R/o H. l'1o.7 -3e :'s&Iii; ;;"*p;ri' Veturu' Waransal'Ivledak'}

Akula NaTayana.,^{S/o Chandraiah' Aged about 65 years' Occ DCM Driwr'} " Ai; H.iG1 d-i -+i'0, ooooo"*ti' Hvderabad'^(P-o1icv. ivtd6)ifti5r^{i #iooossbr z' V'lii {rom 30 7 201 3 to 2e'7'2o14'}

...RESPONDENTS

MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MIS LLANE OUS AP PEAL NO: 1994 oF 2018

Between:

1 ;:1,'.""-Y3ffi"[ym[j""yJ:.i s uda rsha n Reddy, Age-42 years, Occ-

C. Sudarshan Reddy, S/o Bheem Reddy, Age_ 52 yeas. Occ_ Teacher,

C. Siri Chandana, D/o C. Sudarshan Reddy, Age_ ,r rurr., Occ- Student, t 3^f&lflfilj:"1""r"; s^y!":,El Reddv, Ase- 13 years, occ- Student, ril#i:ri,:*:r#Hm:'^x#$fu ",!#'"#'irin.{;;$*l'#

AND

...APPELLANTS

'IY,Iffi '4"'flffi]a3j?,"'sJffi *,xy;T"r,??,:fiijl":!5;;#,ltt:,.

' *3#,'J':,1?'J:i"ff:ffi3""JlBil[I-td'"^{Reo by its Divisionar Manager,}

"H?i6d;#f*yfff Akula Narayana, S/oCha

1?'&'6'i""'?"""f33i'%?iY"#b?li#?#[1"

...RESPONDENTS

Appears fired Llnder,section 173 0f Motor vehicres Act against the Judoment and Decree dt.19.07.2017, passed i" nivbe r.r'"]'o'uu o, 2014 0nthe fire;f the Principat District Judge -"rm_ Moto,. A""iolri cir_r-rribunat at Mahabubnagar.

tr"o These appeals coming- on for. hearing and upon perustng the grounds of appeal, the Judqment and Decree of the t_owEr 6"rrt the material papers in the case and upon hearino fhe, 2vgurnsnls of sri Raj Kumar crandhi, Advocate for the Appe'anr in MACMA rio.snti ort iiiit-t'ilil;:,ents in MACMA No lee4 or 2018 and Sri K 'y'enkata.R;-R"il; ';;;;i" ror the Respondenrs in MACMA.No.30 17 of 2017 and Appeilants i, iirnC"nin rv" 1e94 of 20.18.

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

a That the M.A.C.M.A.No.3o17.,of 2017 filed by claimants be and hereby is partly-allowed by reducing the compensati"i ,["g with rate of interest awarded by the^'Iribunat froT Rs;141?],OoOl_ t" n..izi -of 'reatization;2,6OOt- andirt"r".i O 7 -5o/o per annurn from the date of petition tiif tfr" O"i"

!

That there^{shdl be no order as to costs}

SD/- MOHD.ISMA]L DEPUTY REG RAR

//TRUE GOPY//

SECTI CER

To,

l.ThePrincipalDistrictJudge-cum-MotorAccidentClaimsTribunalat Mahabubnagar.

Two CD CoPies

TPK,/PSL

Yy

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1 7 l02l2O2S

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.No.3017 ot 2017 pARTLy ALLOWED AND MACMA.No.1994 ot 2018 tS DISMISSED

MACMA.No.3017 ot 201t tS pARTLy ALLOWED MACMA.No.1994 of 2018 tS D|SMISSED ,l.^.odd kM

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and award dated 19.07.2017 in MVOP.No.455 of 2014, partly allowing the death claim and awarding Rs.14,21,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally; claim against Respondent No.3 (driver) dismissed.¶67
Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mahabubnagar · 19.07.2017
Prior proceeding
On 07.03.2014, when the deceased (Chinthapally Vamshi Vardhan Reddy) and his friend were proceeding on Yamaha FZ motorcycle No.AP-20-CA-3327 towards Hitam College, Medchal, a DCM Van No.AP-23X-7048 came from behind at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle; the deceased sustained a head injury and died on the spot.¶48
Prior proceeding
On the complaint of the deceased's friend Sri Naresh Kumar, Medchal police station registered Crime No.90 of 2014 under Section 304-A IPC.¶49
Prior proceeding
Claimants averred that the deceased was aged 25 years, a B.Sc Nursing graduate running a BPO/software/health-care business as M/s.VAMNAFI, Hyderabad, earning Rs.15,000/- per month; claim petition sought Rs.20,00,000/-.¶50
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1/owner filed a counter admitting the crime vehicle's involvement, stating he surrendered the vehicle to police, and contending the insured insurer alone was liable and the claim excessive.¶54
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2/Insurance Company denied occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle, age and earnings of the deceased, and contended the driver had no valid driving licence and that the claimants and Respondent No.1 colluded to file a false case.¶55
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3/driver of the crime vehicle did not file any counter before the Tribunal.¶56
Prior proceeding
Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 marked for the petitioners; RW1 was examined for the respondents, who filed no documents.¶66