Musle Laxmi Bai, And 4 Others Vs Sambari Bhuchirajam, And 3 Others

¶1

t³⁴⁴³ I

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:⁶⁴ OF²⁰²⁰

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and^Decree dated 23108/2019^passed in O.P. No. 253 ol¹²⁰¹⁷ on the^file of^{the court of the} Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-^{Prl. District Judge, Adilabad.} Between:

¶8

Musie Laxmi Bai, W/o. Late Musle Blajee, Age. 36^{years, Occ. Household,} R/o. H-No.1-27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda^Mandal, Adilabad^District.

¶9

Musle Sairam, S/o. Late Musle^{Bla.jee,Age.13 years, Occ. Student, R/o.} H.No.1-27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda lt/andal, Adilabad^District.

¶10

Musle Yuvraj, S/o. Late Musle Blajee,^{Age. 10 years, Occ. Student,R/o} H.No.1-27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda^Mandal, Adilabad^District.

¶11

(Petitioner no. 2 and 3 are minors under the guardianship of their^Natural mother and next friend i.e^{petitioner no.1)}

¶12

Musle Namdev, S/o. Musle Ganapathi, Age. 60^{years, Occ. Nil, R/o. H.No- 1-} .^{27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda Mandal,Adilabad District.}

¶13

Musle Jana Bai, W/o. Musle Namdev,^{Age. 54 years,Occ. Household,R/o.} H.No.1 -27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda^{Mandal,Adilabad Diskict.}

¶14

...APPellants/Petitioners

¶15

AND

¶16

1 Sambari Bhuchirajam, S/o.^{Rajalingu, Age. 24 years, Occ.Driver of bus} bearing No.TS.01 .U8.4508,^{Fl/o. H.No.1-45,Narsingapur Village' Hajipur} Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶17

2 Allamala Prabhakar, S/o. Ellaiah,^{Age Major, Occ. Owner of busbearing No.} TS.01.U8.4508, Rl/o. H.No. 50-137, Seetharamraju^{Nagar,RKPMandamarri,} Mancherial District.

¶18

3 United lndia lnsurance Company Limited,^{Rep. by its Branch Manager,} Branch office, H.No.673/1, Balaii complex,^{Ganga Reddy Road, Mancherial,} Mancherial District.^(Policy valid from^{09/10/2016to OBl1Ol2O17)}

¶19

4 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,^{Represented by its Managing} Director,Musheerabad,Hyderabad.^{...Respondents/Respondents}

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. S Surender Reddy

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: Sri K. Venugopal Reddy

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Sri A. Ravi Babu

¶23

The Court delivered the following:

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NARSING RAO NN{DIKONDA}

¶25

M.A.C.M.A.No.64 of 2O2O

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

This M.A.C.M.A. is f-rled by the appellants-petitioners^under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,^{1988 (for short, the Act, 1988')} against the Award and decree,^{dated 23.08.2019,in O.P.No.253 of} 2Ol7 passed by learned Chairman,^{Motor AccidentClaims} Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,^{Adilabad(hereinafter} referred to as 'the learned Tribunal')wherein^{the learned Tribunai} awarded compensation of^{Rs.9,20,5O0/-with interest} @7^{.5"/" per} annrlm to the^petitioners.

¶28

Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy,^{learned counsel lor the} appellants-petitioners and Sri^U. Shanthi^{Bhushan Rao, learned} Standing Counsel for respondent^{No.3 and M.SathishReddy,} learned counsel for respondent No.4^{Perused the record.}

¶29

For the sake of convenience,^{the partieshereinafter will} be referred to as they are arrayed in^{the M.V.O.P}

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that the^{dependents of} the deceased Musle Balajee^{(hereinafterreferredto asthe}

¶31

2

¶32

:'i

¶33

r!R,J IIACUA.f,o.64 of 2OrlO

¶34

deceased') filed clajm petition under Section 166 1)(c) of the Act, 1988 read u,ith Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle RtLle ;, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20,O0,00O/- on account < f death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurrecl < n 01.03.2017 at about 6:15 P.M. near Kummaru Thanda Village. .^,etitioner No. I is "r,ife,^{petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minorsons,petit.r ner Nos.4 and 5} are parents of the deceased.

¶35

On 01.03.2O 17, thre deceased and hLr cousin brother Musle Sanjeev were proceeding on his motorcyct bearing No.Ap01-AG- 1955 lrom Dharmapuri Village towards 'f^-randa Village to meet their relatives and at about 6:15 p.m., w. 3n they reached near Kummarithanda Village, mea_ntime, one brt , bearing No.TSOl UB-4508 nhich is hired by TGSRTC, being dr ven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high spee,J and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from back side, c r re to which the deceased and pillion rider fell down and sustai red injuries and deceased died on the spot. The accident had oc,: rrred purely due to negligent driving of driver of Bus bearing No.Tf i 01-UB-450g.

¶36

The police, Utnoor registered a case u r Crime No.32 of 2Ol7 for the offences under Sections 304-A and .l lg of IpC agarnst

¶37

3

¶38

rlIR'J XlcUA.f,o.64 of2q20

¶39

'ii:

¶40

f)

¶41

the driver of the said Bus and after completion of investigation hled charge sheet against him.

¶42

It is further averred in the petition that the deceased u,as hale ald healthy and he was aged about 37^years at^{the time} of accident. The deceased is having agricultural land in^Survey No.29 l1 to al extent of Ac.2.38 guntas and he used to earn a^sum of Rs.2,00,0OOl- per annum from it.^{The deceased also used to} work in M/s. Ramesh Cloth Merchant Shop at lchoda and^{used to} get salary' of Rs.9,SOO/- per month and contribute the same for the welfare of the petitioners. Due to sudden death of the^deceased, the petitioners were put to pain and^mentalagony and^{they also} lost .frnal^{support.Therefore, the petitionersfi1ed claim petition} claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from^{respondentNos.1} to 4 jointly and severally.

¶43

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest^{the matter and} remained ex parte.

¶44

Respondent No.3 - insuralce company filed^counter- affidavit denying the material averments made in^{the petition} including age, avocation and income^{of the deceased and also} manner of the accident. It is further^{averred thatthe}

¶45

4

¶46

rrR,J UAcrA.f,o.64 of2O2O

¶47

compensation claimed by the petitioners is exce I sive, exorbitant and hence pral.ed to dismiss the petition.

¶48

10, Basing on the above pleadings, the i:errned Tribunal

¶49

framed the following issues for trial:

¶50

"1. Whether the death of Musle Balajee S/o M.Namdev 9 ho dred in a motor !el)icle accident occurred on 01.03.2017 at alx ut 6:30 p.m., near Kummari Thanda village, due to rash and r:gligerlt driving of tire bus bearing No.TS-O 1-UB-4508 by its d: rr:r i r... responden t No. 1?

¶51

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compen;r tion? lf so. to..r'har extent and from u'hom?

¶52

Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of o,r, r,:r and instrrer of motorclcle bearing No.AP-01-AG- 1955 as rr cess.an. parlies in the original petition, since the motorcycle r as also involved in thc accident?

¶53

To rr, hat relieP"

¶54

1 1. During the course of enquir],, ()11 beha-lf of the petitioners, the wife of the deceased was examirt :d as P.W.1 and got examined the eyewitness to the accident zL, P.W.2 and got marked one Jagadish as P.W.3 and got marked Er s.A. 1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondents, R.W. 1 was examinec. and got marked Exs.X. 1 and X.2.

¶55

The learned Tribuna-l after hearing I oth the counsel and after considering the entire material on r )cord, held that

¶56

5

¶57

!.TR,J UACUA.tto.64 of 2O2O

¶58

..//

¶59

respondent No.1 being driver, respondent no.2 being the owner, respondent No.3 being insurance company and respondent No.4, who hired the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay of compensation of Rs.9,20,50O/- with interest @7.5% per arrnum to the petitioners.

¶60

Being aggrieved and unsatislted with the compensation aw,arded by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners preferred the present appeal on the following among the other grounds:

¶61

(0 The learned Tribunal having held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent dnving of driver of TSRTC bearing No.TS-O 1-UB-4508, erred in not granting total compensation amount as claimed by the appellants.

¶62

(ii) Though deceased was aged about 37 years and earning Rs.9,5O0/- at the time of accident, the Tribunal without considering the evidence in proper manner erred in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,50O / - per month.

¶63

(iii) The Tribunal erred in granting meagre amount of compensation under 'loss of estate', loss of consortium and funeral expenses which is against the rulings laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶64

6

¶65

rIR,J f,AcfA.ro.54 of202O

¶66

Et :

¶67

(iv) The learned Tribunal failed to grant jr.r t compensation ald erred in au,arding 1ow rate of interest.

¶68

L4. Having heard learned counsel for rhe appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents an j having perused the entire material placed on record, the following roints that arise for consideratiorr are:

¶69

lr) Whether the oppello.nts are entltled Jor enhan:etuent of co'iapensq.tlon, tf so, to uhqt ertent? 6r) To whqt relleP

¶70

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

¶71

The Tribunal after considering the oral zt rd documentar5r evidence held that the accident had occurred c ue to rash and negiigent driving of driver of the crime bus. The r rain grievance of the petitioners is that at the time of accident, the leceased used to earn an amount of Rs.9,500/- and in proof of r,ame P.W.l filed Ex.A.6-salan certificate and to substantiate the s rme she also got examined P.W.3, who deposed that he is runnir g a shop in the name alrd style of M/s. Ramesh Textiles at lch,> la and deceased was working in his shop as Muneem from 2009 () rwa_rds and he is drawrng salary of Rs.9,5OO/- per month. In spite of the same, the

¶72

7

¶73

ll{R.J UACU^ro.64 of^2OrlO

¶74

'/

¶75

Tribunal did not^{believethe version of P.Ws' 1 and 3 and Ex'A'6'} The learned Tribunal^{erroneously taken the monthlyincome of the} deceased at Rs.4,50O/-^{by placing reliance on the judgmentof the} Hon'lcle Supreme Court^{in Ramachandrappav' Manager, Royal} Sundaram Aliance Insurance^{Co. Ltdr}

¶76

It is settled iaw^{that the Hon'bie Supreme Courtin} Latha Wadhwa a.^{Storte o! Bihai2 it was held that even when} there is no proof of^{income ald earnings, the incomecan be} reasonably estimated and^{assessed considering the ground} realities. Further, in^{Shaikh SaditcShcrtk Raflque a' Rellonce} Generc;l Insurance^{CompangLlmtted and other*,the Hon'ble} Supreme Court has^{enhanced the compensation amount of the} deceased, who^{was unskilled labour to Rs' 10,000/-per month'} artd the reievant^{paragraphNo.5 reads as under:}

¶77

"5. Rannachandrrrppa a.^{Mdnaget' Royal Sundarq'tn} Alliance Insurance^{CompangLimited detennined an} income of^{Rs.4,SOO/ - per month in the gear 2OO4 for a} coolie. A Constttution^{Bench in Nationol Insurance Compang} Ltmited us. Pranag^{SethiandOth.ers} foun'd^{tlwt there uouldbe} an incrementol^{increase in the incomeuhich according to us}

¶78

1 2011 (6) ALD 75

¶79

r 2025 SCC Online sc 1092,

2 2001(8) SCC¹⁹⁷

8

i ) ,,ti i

f,rl&J l{AcMA.llo.64 of 202O

¶84

would be reasonoble if frxed at Rs.500/- per rn(t th for euery .successiue qear. Ln the present case, the accidctt occuned in the gear 2015, 11 years afier 2OO4 and going by t rc principles stated [n lh.e ofore-cited decis[ons the appelLant, tn unskilled u.torker utould be entitLed to claim monthl.T inr:ome of Rs.10,000/ "

¶85

L7. In view of recent judgment, dated 1:l l'5.2025, passed

¶86

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shclkh Scdik I haik Ratlque's case and Latho. Wadhwa's case (cited both supr'; .) and iooking at the avocation of the deceased and considering the ground realities, this Court is of the vierv that it is a fit case to r Lke the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,oOO/- per month (Rs.900O x 12 = Rs. 1,08,0O0/ -) per annum. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insuranc e Company v. Pranay Sethi and others4, since the deceased u,a s below 40 years an addition of 4Oo/o u,ould be added towards fut- re prospectus. If the said principle is applied the annual incom,: of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,200/-(Rs.1,08,000 + 1s.43,200) (40% addition). Since the petitioners are 5 in number, n the light of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S arla Verma and

¶87

4 2017 ACJ 2700

¶88

9

¶89

iNE'J IAcu -[o.54 of^2O2o

¶90

others v. Delhi Transport Corporation^{and anothers, 1/4* of} income of the deceased has to^{be deductedtowards his personal} and living expenses, which^{comesto Rs.37,800(-) (Rs. 1} ,51,2OOx%)

¶91

As per the column^{No.4 of table in the judgmentof the} Hon'lrle Supreme Court in Sarla^{Verrna as 36 years, the} appropriate multiplier appiicable^{for the deceasedage is'15''} Further, the learned Tribunal^{has applied multiplier '15' and the} same is not disputed by^{the respondents.After applying the same,} the total loss of dependency^{would come to Rs. 1,13,400 x15 =} 17,O1,OOO/-.

¶92

The appellants/ claimants^{are further entitledto} Rs.18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/-^{+ 1O7o + 1o7o) towardsloss of estate and} Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/-^{+ lOVo + 1O7o)towards funeral expenses,} as per Pranag Sethi's^{Judgrnent(cited supra).}

¶93

2C.. Appellant No.1 being^{wife of the isentitledfor} compensation to a sum of^{Rs.48,400/ -towards spousal} consortium', as per Pranay Sethi's^{Judgment (cited supra)'}

¶94

s 2oo9 ACJ 1298

¶95

10

¶96

f,rR"J XAclA.Xo.64 of 2OilO

¶97

Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being son ancl r aughter of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) towards 'parental corL ortrum', as per lVcnu Rcrm's case alts Chuhnt Ranne

¶98

Further, considering appellant No.4 ::ing the father and appellant No.S mother of the deceased are en -i led to a sum of Rs.48,400/-each under the head of ' frlial corr;ortium' as per Pranag Sethi's ,Jrtd.gment (cited supra).

¶99

On overall re-appreciation of the pleadi rgs, materiai on record and the law laid down by the Honble Supre ne Court in the aforesaid cited decisions, this Court is of the : tinion that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of <:r mpensation as modifred and recalculated as above and given in tlt : table below for easy reference:

¶100

Considering the above assessment mac e by this Court, appellalts would be entitled to as follows:

¶101

I nnual Income (of the deceased)

¶102

s.9OOO/- X 12^: Rs.1,08,000/-

¶103

6 zore lrey scc t:o

¶104

a1

¶105

rllR,J X CXA.lto-64 of 2q2O

¶106

TotalAnnua-l lncome=AnnualIncome + FUture Prospects(AnnualIncome⁺4oyo) =43,2OO Rs.1,O8,0O0/= Rs.1,5l,2O0l-
i)Since dcpendents arelive innumber^rz+hastobe deducted towards personalexpensesofthedeceased Rs.1,51,200/(-)Rs.37,800/-= Rs.1,13,a00/-
Sincethedeceased relevantmultiplieris dependencywould (Rs.1,13,aOOlx15) about37years,the sameisapplied,the to Rs.17,01,000/- isaged 15and come	Rs.17,01,0O0/-
Claimants'arealsoentitlement amountunder conventionalheadsi-e.,lrssof Estate⁺Funera] Expenses⁺losso[consortium⁺lossoffilial consortiumrParental Consorl.ium- Rs.l8,15O/-⁺Rs.I8,15O/-⁺Rs.48,400⁺Rs.96,8OO⁺ 96,800	Rs.2,78,300/-
Tota.l	Rs.19,79,300/ l

¶107

Thus, in all the appellants/claimants are entifled to the as enhanced compensation of Rs.19,79,3OO/against the awarded amount oi Rs.9,20,500/ by the learned Tribunal

¶108

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 9,2O,5OO l- to Rs. Rs. 19,79,3OO1-^(Rupees Ninteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred only) with interest at the rate @ 7 .5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of^rea\zation.

¶109

{

¶110

t2

¶111

I{IIR,J u^cuA.lto.64 of 2O2O

¶112

The respondents are directed to deposit the said I nount together with costs and interest after giving due credit ,o the arnount already deposited, if any, within a pr riod of two (2) months from the receipt of a copy of this^j rdgment. The compensation amount shall be apportione r among the appellants/clairnants in the same manner and rar o as ordered by the leamed Tribunal. There sha-1l be no order as 1.(. )osts

¶113

Miscellaneous petitions, if aly are pend i' Lg, sha1l stand

¶114

closed.

¶115

sd/JAWAHAR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR AS ;f^[.

¶116

-7

¶117

//TRUE COPY// I s*clou oFFrcER

¶118

To, The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- F r . District Judge, Adilabad. (With records)

¶119

One CC to Sri. S Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUO'

¶120

.t. One CC to Sri K. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate [OPl.l )l

¶121

One CC to Sri A. Ravi Babu, Advocate [OPUC] q Two CD Copies

AS/DL

h" t/

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/10/202s

JUDGMENT

:, iATE (,A
ri
(r 03 illifl ?Un : ,il

MACMA.No.64 of 2020

PARTLY ALLOWED

1
l,/ *
q

[³⁴⁴³ ]

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

¶133

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶134

PRESENT

¶135

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO^NANDIKONDA

¶136

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEALNO: 64 OF 2020}

¶137

Between

¶138

Musle Laxmi Bai, W/o. Late Musle^{Blajee,Age. 36 years,Occ. Household,} FJo. H.No.1-27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda^{Mandal,AdilabadDistrict}

¶139

Musle Sairam, S/o. Late Musle^{Blajee,Age. 13 years, Occ. Student'R/o.} H.No.1-27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda^{Mandal,Adilabad District.}

¶140

Musle Yuvraj, S/o. Late lvlusle Blajee,^{Age.10 years,OccStudent,R/o} H.No.1-27, Dharampuri Village, lchoda^{Mandal,Adilabad District.}

¶141

(Petitioner no. 2 and 3 are minors under the^{guardianshipof theirNatural} mother and next friend^{i.e petitionerno,1)}

¶142

Musle Namdev, S/o.^tvlusle Ganapathi,^{Age. 60 years'Occ Nil, R/oH.No.1 -} 27, Dharampuri Village, Ichoda^Mandal, Adilabad^District-

¶143

Musle Jana Bai, W/o.^{IrilusleNamdev, Age. 54 years, Occ Household,R/o} H No.1 -27, Dharampuri Village,^{Ichodatvlandal,Adilabad District.}

¶144

...APPellants/Petitioners

¶145

AND

¶146

1 Sambari Bhuchirajam, S/o. Rajalingu,^{Age. 24 years, Occ. Driverof bus} bearing No.TS.0'l .U8.4508,^{Rl/o. H.No.1-45,Narsingapur Village,Hajipur} Mandal, [\4ancherial District.

¶147

Allamala Prabhakar, S/o.^{Ellaiah, Ag} e.M ajor, Occ. Owner of bus bearing^No. TS.0'1.U8.4508, R/o. H.No. 50-137, Seet haramraju Nagar, RKP Mandamarri, Mancherial District.

¶148

United lndia lnsurance^{CompanyLimited, Rep. by its Branch Manager,} Branch office, H.No.673/1, Balaji complex,^{Ganga Reddy Road, Mancherial,} Mancherial District.^{(Policy validfrom O9l10l2O16to OBl1Ol2O17)}

¶149

4- Telangana State Road^{TransportCorporation'Represented-byits Managing} Direct-or, Musheerabad,Hyddrabad.^{...Respondents/Respondents}

¶150

Appeal filed under Section 173 of^{M.V.Act, against Order and Decree} dated 23108/2019^passed in o.P. No.^{253 of 12017on the file of the court of the} Chairman, Motor Accident^{ClaimsTribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Adilabad'}

¶151

"7

¶152

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perLs ng the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and t I r material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri. S Surende leddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri K. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate appear€( for Respondent No. 3, Sri A. Ravi Babu, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 .

¶153

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶154

That the fi,4otor Accident Civil lvliscellaneous Appeal b( tnd is parfly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 9,20,500/- to Rs 19,79,300 (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand three Hundrerl :nty) with interest @ 7.Sok p.a on the enhanced amount of compensation fr,r r the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶155

That the respondents be and hereby are directed to rlt:1 osit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit t,the amount already deposited ii any within a period of two (02) months frorr the receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶156