Partly allowed

Badikala Laxmi And 4 Others v. Page Lingaiah And Another

Telangana HC22 Jul 2025MACMA/54/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed against a motor accident award for the death of a pedestrian hit by a motorcycle. The court upheld liability and policy coverage, recalculated dependency using a Rs.4,500 monthly income with multiplier '5', added conventional heads, and enhanced compensation from Rs.2,50,000 to Rs.2,87,200 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,50,000 to Rs.2,87,200 with interest @7.5% p.a. on enhanced amount; respondents to deposit within two months after due credit.

Badikala Laxmi And 4 Others Vs Page Lingaiah And… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY^{OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL^{LANEOUSAPPEAL NO:54 OF 2020}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section^{'173 of M.V.Actagainst the AwardandDecree} Dated. 05/09i2019 in M.V.O.P^{No. 203 ot 2016, on the file of the Court of the} Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-cum-PrincipalDistrictJudge,} Adilabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Badikala Laxmr W/o. Late Banaiah,^{Age 62 Years, Occ. Household,}

¶10

Badikala Madunaiah, S/o.^{Late Banaiah, Age 46 Years, Occ.Labour,}

¶11

Rasmalla Sammakka,^{Wo. Banaiah, Age 44 Years, Occ. Household,}

¶12

B. Venkatesh, S/o. Late^{Banaiah, Age 42 Years, Occ'Labour,}

¶13

B. Sateesh, W/o. Late Banaiah,^{Age 39 Years, Occ. Labour,}

¶14

All are R/o. Adarsha^{Nagar, Chennur, Presently ResidingAt Ramnagar,} Adilabad

¶15

.,.APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

I Page Lingaiah And Another,^{S/o. Sammaia.h,Age 45 Years' Occ.Own91-} cu,i - Oriier of Crime Vehicle^{motorcycle bearing No. AP. 01 .AF - 1843, R/o'} Sundarasala Village,^{Rl/M. Chennur, Adilabad District}

¶18

United lndia lnsurance^{Company Limited,Rep.,} by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Gangareddy^{Road, Mancherial,Adila} bad District⁽ Policy Valid From, 191O212O16 to^1810112O17)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants:^{M/s.S. Surender Reddy}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 1: None Appeared}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 2: Sri V. Venkata RamiReddy}

¶23

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.NO.54 0F 2020

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This M.A.C.M.A has been preferred by the appellantsclaimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,the Ar:t, i9B8J aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated 05.09.2019, in M.V.O.P.No.2O3 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicie Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumPrincipal District Judge, Adilabad (for short, lhe Tribunal').

¶28

Hearcl Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and Sri V.Venkatrami Reddy, Iearned Stalding Counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Compan1,. Perused the material on record.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that the dependants of the deceased Badikala Banaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,OO,O0O/- on account of death of the deceased in the road traffic accident occurred on 19.O3.2O16 at about 18:3O

¶31

NNR.J Macma 54²⁰²⁰

¶32

¶33

hours near^{Krishnaveni TalentHigh School,Chennur'} Petitioner^{No.1 is wife, petitioner Nos'2 to 5 are sons arrd} daughter^{of the deceased.}

¶34

On 19.03.20 16 while^{the deceased was proceeding} to his son's^{house situatedat Chennurto drop his children} and when^{they reached near Krishnaveni Talent HighSchool,} Chennur, all^{of asudden, respondentNo. 1 came on his} motorcycle^{bearingNo.AP-O1-AF-1843 at high speed in a rash} and negligent^{manner and dashed the deceased, due to which} the deceased^{fell down on the road and sustained grievous} injuries. Immediately^{after the accident,the deceasedwas} shifted to^{Government Hospital, Chennurand after giving} First Aid,^{he was referred to SharanyaHospital, where he was} treated as^{inpatientalddoctors conducted several tests,} examination^{and also conducted surgeryand implants were} inserted^{and he was discharged on 07.04.2016 with an advice} to take bed^{rest with follow up treatment' But the deceased} was slrccumbed to injuries^{on 12.04.2016 while undergoing} treatment in his^{houseat Chennur.}

¶35

Initially, the Police, Chennur^{registered a case in} Crime No.45 of 2O 16 for the offence under^{Section337 of IPC}

¶36

\R.J 'racma i{ 2lll0

¶37

¶38

against respondent No.1 arld subsequently aJter death of the deceased. police altered Section of law from 337 of IpC to Section 304 -A ol IPC and filed charge sheet against driver of the motorcycle.

¶39

It is stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 6O years, hale ald healthy and used to earn Rs.8,OOO / - per month by u,orking as a night watchman in Ginning Factory and also doing labour work and contributing the same for the welfare of the petitioners. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners were put to pain and mental agony and petitioner No.l also lost financial support. Hence, the petitioners filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,0O,0OO/ from the respond ents.

¶40

Respondent No. 1 filed counter_affidavit denying the averments made in the petition including the age, avocation, income of the deceased aLnd also manner of the accident. It is stated that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence respondent No.2 is only liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is further stated that the

NNR.J Macma_54 -2020

!t I i I I :.

compensation^{claimedby the claimantsis excessivearrd} exorbitant^{and hence' he prayed to dismissthe petidon'} 9' Respondent^{No'2 fried counter-affidavit denying} the^{averments made inthe petition including the age'} avocation,^{incomeand a'lso manner of the accident'ltis} further^{stated that the compensation claimedby the} claimants^{is excessive and exorbitantand hence' he prayed to}

¶45

dismiss^{the Petition'} 10'^{On the basis of above pleadings'the following}

¶46

issues^{have been framedby the Tribunalfor trial:}

¶47

"1.^{trIhetherthe accidenttookPlace as allegedby the'} Petitioners "" l'':"'::=::"::, :::':;:"t;^{ffi H];H} Talenr^{High school,crrerour' ^:} _::;,--".. dr iving^{by the rider of} Banaiah^{o[accouatof rash and negligent} belonging^{to frrst respoadeat} motorcycle^{bearing tr};;1-^"-'843 negligence^{on the partof the deceased?} or^{whetherth"tt *"t l"} -tO"'" *"" any insurance coverage for^the rootorcycle 2' Whether^{b""""g n":;-or'er-re+sand ifso' does the policy} cover^the '"O "'^{u"*l="Uand if so' was there any breach of policy} conaitioo^{allegedby the resPondent?} and^{the earnings of} 3' What^{were the age'avocatio[}

¶48

to^aoy deceased? r the^{Petitionersareentitled} 4' Whethe to *n"t^{extent and againstwhom?} comPeasatlon^{if so'} 5 To^srhatreUef?

¶49

NNR.J iuacma )1 2010

¶50

During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioners, the wife of the deceased i.e, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and got examined an eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A. 1 to A. 11. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentar5r- evidence w,as adduced

¶51

L2. The Tribunal, after considering the entire oral and documentary eviclence on record submissions of both the counsel, held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent drir.ing of driver of motorcycle bearing No.AP-O 1-AF1843 arrd accordingly granted compensation of Rs.2,50,000/with proportionate costs together with interest at 7 .5t% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos. I and 2 jointly and severally Further respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of said order Aggrieved by the sarne and being unsatisfied with compensation, the present appeal is Iiled by the claimants on the follo"r,ing grounds:

¶52

(i) The learned Tribunal having held that the accident had occurred due to rash ad negligent driving of driver of

¶53

NNR," Macma-54-2020 -

¶54

¶55

motorcycle^{erred in not granting compensation as claimed by the} claimants. (ii) Though^{thedependentsare[-tve innumber'} erroneously^{the Tribunaldeductedliving expensesof the deceased} 1/3'a^{insteadof I I 4\h'} (iii) The^{learned Tribunalfailedto grant just compensatton} and^{erred in awarding low rate of interest'}

¶56

Learned^{counsel for theappellants-claimants} submits^{that thoughthe wife of the deceasedwas examined} as P.W.l^{and examined PW'2who is an eyewitness to the} incident^{and markedExs'A'1 to A' 1 1 and proved that the} accident^{had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of} offending^{vehicle, the respondentshave not adduced either} oral or^{documenta4revidenceeven thoughthe learned} Learned^counsel Tribunal^{grantedmeagre compensation'} further^{submitsthat prior to the accident'the deceased used} toearnaIIamountofRs.8,00o/-permonthbydoingnight watchmanatGinningFactorybesidesgoingforlabourwork, but the^{Court below did not consider the same and taken} only an^{amount of Rs'4'500/per month' which is against} the evidence^{on record'Learned counselalso submitsthat} due to the^{accident,claimalt No' 1 lost her conjugallife and}

¶57

\R.J

¶58

¶59

claimant Nos.2 to 5 have lost their fatherhood and by considering the same the learned Tribunal ought to have granted more conlpensation as claimed by them and that the Tribunal awarded very meagre compensation under the head of dependency, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and hence, sought for enhancement of the compensation.

¶60

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal on considering the entire material on record rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same

¶61

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

¶62

'Whether the appellants-claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?,'

¶63

The accident is not in dispute. In the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died subsequently is also not in dispute. To prove the same, the wife the deceased examined as P.W.1 and reiterated the

¶64

i- -

-- ---.:i

NNR,I Macma 54 2020

contents of^{the petition filed by her' She has not witnessed} the incident.^{She also got examined P'W'2, who deposedthat} on 19.03.2016^{while he was standing near Krishnaveni Talent} School, Chennur,^{at that time, onemotorcyclewas} proceeding along^{with children and at about17:45 hours and} when they^{reached near Krishnaveni TalentSchool'Chennur'} a,ll of a sudden,^{respondentNo' 1 came on his motorcycle} bearing^{No.AP-01-AF-1843athigh speed in arash and} negligent manner^{and dashedthe deceasedDue to which} thedeceasedfelldownontheroadandsustainedgrievous injuries all^{over the body. Apart from oral evidenceof P'Ws'1} and 2, the^{petitionersalso relied on Ex'A' 1 FIR, Ex'A'3 charge} sheet, which^{categorically discloses that based on report of} the police,^{whichrevealsthat the accident has occurreddue} to rash and^{negligentdriving of driver of motorcyclist' To} disprove the^{same, the respondentsdid not adduce any oral} or documentar5r^{evidence. Therefore,the learned Tribunal} answered.issueNo.linfavouroftheclaimarrtsandagainst the respondents.^{Therefore,in the opinion of this Court' the} findings given by the^{learned Tribunalare basedon the} material available on record^{and considering the evidence}

NNR.J !{acma 5a 2010

i ! i i ; ! i

produced b.y the claimants and the sarne needs no interlerence b1' this Court.

¶74

As far as existence of poiicy is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that respondent No.2 did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. However, the petitioners hled trx.A6 copy of insurance policy liled by p.W. 1, which discloses that the policy issued in favour of respondent No.1 covering the period from 19.01.2O16 to lA.O1.2Ol7. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the policy is in force.

¶75

P.W. I is vgife of the deceased and according to her the deceased is aged about 6O years at the time of accident. But, as per Ex.A.2-inquest panchanama and Ex.A. 1 1_ postmortem certificate, age of the deceased was mentioned as 70 years. According to^p.W. 1, prior to the accident, the deceased used to earn ar amount of Rs.g,00O/_ per month by working as night watchman in Ginning Factory and also doing labour rvork and contributing the same for the welfare of the claimants. Since the claimants have not produced any proof in support of their contention, the leamed Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/_ per month by pll"i:g reliance on the judgment of rhe Hon,ble Supreme

!--'

NNR.. Macma i,l²⁰²⁰

-- "*i:l

Court in the^{case ofRamachandrappa v' Manager, Royal} Sundaram^{Alliance InsuranceCo'Ltdl, whereinitwas}

¶83

observed as^follows:

¶84

"The appellant^{was *'orkingas a collieand in and around} the date of^{the accident, the wageof the labourer\a'as} between^{Rs.1OO/-to Rs.15O/- per day or Rs4'500/-per} month. tn our^{view, the claim was honest and bona ltde} and, therefore,^{there was no reasonfor the Tribunal to} have reduced^{the monthlyearningof the apPellantfrom} Rs.4,500/- to^{Rs-3,000/-per monthWe' therefore'accept} his statement^{that his monthly earningwasRs 4'500/- "}

¶85

As^{seen from the record, the Tribunal had taken} monthly income^{of the deceasedat Rs'4,5O0/- basing on the} settled law^{as prevailed in RamachandraPPa'scase and also} considering the^{groundrea-litiesand also considering the age} of the deceased.^{Hence, in the opinion of this Court' the} Tribunal has rightly^{taken the monthlyincomeofthe} deceased, which^{needs no interference by this Court' The} annual income^{of the deceasedwould come to Rs 54'OO0/-} (Rs.4,SOO X 12) and, out^{of which, 1/4has to be deducted} towards the personal^{expenses oft1le deceased as the} dependants are five in^{number'Then the actual annual}

'^zorr io;^arozs

NNR.I Vacma 54 2020

income the deceased would come to Rs.40,5OO/- (Rs.5a,OOO/(') Rs.13,500/ ).

¶90

As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Scrla Venna a. Delhi Transport Corporationz, ald considering the age of the deceased berween 66 7O years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '5'. Thus, the total loss of dependenc-v rvould come to Rs.2,O2,5OO/- (aO,5OO/- x S).

¶91

The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15.OOO/- + LOoh + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,15O/ (Rs.15,000/- + loyo + lOo/o) towards funeral expenses, as per National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and others3

¶92

Appellant No.1 claimant No.1 is entitled for spousal consortium ol Rs.48,400/- under the head of loss of

¶93

'z^{2oognc: 1298(sc)} 3 2017 ACJ 2700

!- _.-rq

NN. Macrna 54 2020

spouse, as per Magma^{General InsuranceCompang} Limited Vs.Nanu^{Ram alis Chuhrtt Rama.} -

¶98

In Sarlc Verntlr's^{case (cited aboue), the Hon'ble} Apex Court, while^{elaborating theconcept ofJust} compensation'^{observed as under:}

¶99

" Post compensation^{is adequote compensation uhich ts foir} and eqtitoble on^the focts^{and circumstances of the cose, to} make good the loss suffered^{as a result of the uLrong'as far} as moneg can do^{so,bg applying, tle Luell settledpinciples} relating to auard. of^{compensation.It is not intendedto be a} bonnnza, largesse or^{sourceof profit "}

¶100

On overall re-appreciation^{of thepleadings,} material on record and^{the law laid down by the Hontrle} Supreme Court in the^{aforesaid cited decisions,I am of the} opinion that the claimarts^{are entitledto enhancement of} compensation as modified^{and recalculatedas above and} given in the table for^{easy reference:}

¶101

21o. Considering the^{above assessmentmade by this}

¶102

Court, appellants^{would be entitled to as follows:}

¶103

i AnF"rr Income (of the deceased) Rs .4,50 Ol- X t).._- =.. Rs.54,0OO/-

'^{2018(18) scc 130}

NNR.J Macma 54 2020

ii) Allual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/4
deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased
Rs.s4.0OO/ ( lRs I3.5OO/ Rs.40,500/
i\ ) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied
Multiplier = Rs.4O,5O0/- x 5
Rs 2,O2,500
) Clarmarts' entrtlement towards conventiona.l heads =
Loss of Estatr: + Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal
Consorfuum =
Rs. 18,150/- + Rs. 18,150/- + Rs.48,400
Rs.E4,700/-
Total
Rs.2,87,2OOt-

¶108

Thus, the appellants/claimants a-re entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,87.2OOt- as against the ai\rarded arnount of Rs.2,50,OOO I - by the learned Tribunal.

¶109

27 . Con sidering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7.5^oh per annum and the sarne needs no interference by this Court. Hence. this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/ claimants are entitled to interest @ Z.S % on the enhanced atnount. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,87,2OOl -

--.-=

NN\

Macma 54²⁰²⁰

2A. Accordingly,^{the M.A.C'M'A is allowed in part'} enhancing the^{compensationfromRs'2,50'0OO/- to} Rs.2,87,2OOl-^{with interestat the rate @ 7'5 % p'a' on the} enhanced amount^{from the date of petition till the date of} realization.^{The respondents are directedto depositthe said} amount together^{with costs and interest after givingdue} credit to^{the amountalready deposited, if any, withina period} of two months^{from the receipt of a copyof this judgment'} The compensation^{amount shall be apportioned amongthe} appellants/claimants^{inthe sarne mannerand ratio as} ordered by^{the Iearned Tribunal' There shall be no order as to} costs

¶117

Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any are pending,sha1l stand}

¶118

closed.

¶119

d,, M.^{JAWAHAR REDDY} TSTANT^REGISTRAR

¶120

/TTRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶121

To, 1. The^{Chairman'Motor AccidentsCtaimsTribunal-cum-Principal District Judge'} Adilabad.

¶122

2 One CC^{to Sri S Surender Reddy' Advocate IOPUCI} 3 One^{CC to Sri V Venkata Rami Reddy' Advocate IOPUCI}

¶123

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

NNR, J

DATED: 2210712025

a:
. -.! . t_ i i,'-rt
,. :,
S' 1fl l'iflfl I['6 !zo
i
t D6:SPAT

¶128

JUDGMENT+DECREE

¶129

MACMA.No.54 of 2020

¶130

PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA
WITHOUT COSTS
tu
t6l'l 16.

¶131

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶132

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶133

PRESENT

¶134

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO^NANDIKONDA

¶135

MOTO R ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO:54 oF 2020}

¶136

Between:

¶137

'1 . Badikala Laxmi W/o. Late Banaiah, Age 62 Years, Occ. Household,

¶138

Badikala Madunaiah, S/o. Late Banaiah, Age 46 Years, Occ.^Labour,

¶139

Rasmalla Sammakka, W/o. Banaiah, Age 44 Years, Occ.^Household,

¶140

B. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Banaiah, Age 42 Years, Occ. Labour,

¶141

B. Sateesh, Wo. Late Banaiah, Age 39 Years, Occ. Labour, All are R/o. ,Adarsha Nagar, Chennur, Presently^{ResidingAt Ramnagar,} Adilabad

¶142

...APPELLANTS/PETITION ERS

¶143

AND

¶144

1 Page Lingaiah, S/o. Sammaiah, Age. 45 Years,^{Occ. Owner - cum- Driver of} Crime Vehicle motorcycle bearing No. AP.⁰¹ .AF^{- 1843, Ryo. Sundarasala} Village, Ri./M. Chennur, Adilabad District

¶145

2 United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep., by its^{BranchManager,} Branch Office, Gangareddy Road, Mancherial, Adilabad^{District ( Policy Valid} From, 1910212016 to 1810112O17)

¶146

...RESPONDENTS

¶147

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act^{againstthe AwardandDecree} Dated. 05/09/2019 in M.V.O.P No. 203 of 2016, on^{the file of the Court of the} Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal^{DistrictJudge,} Adilabad.

¶148

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^{perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court^{below and the material papersin} the case and upon hearing the arguments of^{M/s.S. Surender Reddy, Advocate} for the Appellants and Sri V. Venkata^{Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent} No. 2.

¶149

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶150

1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal^{be and hereby is partly} allowed, enhancing the compensation^{from Rs 2,50,000to Rs 2,87,200with} interest at the rate @ 7.5o/o^p.a on the enhanced^{amount fromthe date of} petition till the date of realization;

¶151

That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to tne amount;i;;; this deposited, If judgment;any, within a period of two months from the receipt of " .opy o't

¶152