Partly allowed

N. Bhimaiah and 2 others v. P.S.C. Bose Automobiles

Telangana HC11 Jun 2025MACMA/69/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed an appeal by claimants against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court enhanced the compensation for the deceased farm labourer from Rs. 7,56,400 to Rs. 10,21,500, including loss of dependence, consortium, funeral, and estate expenses, while confirming the procedure.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 7,56,400/- to Rs. 10,21,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.; respondents directed to deposit amount.

N. Bhimaiah and 2 others Vs P.S.C. Bose Automobiles — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

134/i41

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICETIRUMALA DEVI EADA}

¶6

Appeal filed under Section^{173 of Motor Vehicle Act, aggrievedby the} Decree and Judgment^{passed in M.V.O.P No. 444 of 2016, dated 3111012018, on} the file of the Court^{of ine ChairmanMotorAccident Claims / Tribunal- Cum - Vlll} Additional District Judge,^{Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

N. Bhimaiah, S/o.^{Chennappa,A,/a.56Yrs, Occ.AgricultureRl/o' H'No' 8-} 116/8, Saroornagar, Ranga^{Reddy District)}

¶9

Z. N.^{pedda Venkataiah,S/o. N. Bhimaiah, Ala- 29_Yrs,.Occ.Agriculture. (All are} R/o. H.No. 8-116/8,^{Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District)}

¶10

N. Narsimulu,^{S/o. N. Bhimaiah, Ala 27 Yrs, OccAgriculture}

¶11

(All are R/o. H.No. 8-116/8,^{Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy District)}

¶12

...APPELLANT(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

P.S.C. Bose Automobiles, by ,^{P.Sudheer S/o. Not} Known, Age.Major, Occ. B/8,3rd Road, Jawahar Autonagar Vijayawada Krishna District, A.P.^State.

¶15

National lnsurance^{Company Ltd, Rep, by its Regio.lq!} lUeryqgll4oghul Coiirti, easneerbagh,^{nydeiabad.PcilicfNgr S6OS-OOS11510007016 Lorry-} . oJiiiirri ruo. Ap loTD^{8328, veli{tryry} ?!1:?919^to^{20-01-2017 EnsineNo.} 31 H 8-4124594, Chassis^{No. MAT 466422D5K09397.}

¶16

Venkata Rarnana,^{M.S S/o. Ramana, Age.Jvlqjor',Oqq.pri-v-er, Rl/o; 2'529,} Arban Nagar, Atmakur,^{Kurnool District, A.P. State -518422-}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRl. MIRZA SAFIULLABAIG}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI HARINATH GUPTA}

¶20

The Court made the following:^JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶23

JTIDGMENT:

¶24

This appeal is liled by the craimants aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 31.10.201g in M.v.o.p.N o.444 0f 20l6passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunar-cum_vlll Additionat District Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B Nagar (for short "the Tribunal,).

¶25

2' For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶26

The case of the craim petitioners before the Tribunal is that the deceased-smt. N. Mangamma was warking at Salkarpet V,lage on 15'o4'2016 at about lr:oo p.fr., one rorry bearing No.Ap_16_ TD-8378 c€une in a rash and negrigent manner at a high speed and hit the deceased from behind, on account of which the deceased sustained severe injuries and when she was taken to the Government Hospital at Mahabubnagar, she was declared dead. The case of the claimants is that Mangamma was an agricurturist and she was earning Rs.1S,O0O/_ per month.

¶27

The respondent No.l and 3 remained ex_parte.

¶28

¶29

5 1^Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age and

¶30

ETDJ MACMA No.69_2021

¶31

¶32

avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended ttrat the Policy details mentioned by the petitioners are not tallying with their records and that they are not liable

¶33

Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

¶34

il whether the arcident hod oeturcd. on 1s.04.2016 at 1r:00 p.m., at salkatpet vilrage utas du? to the rash ard. negtigent aaiig ,j't;n diuer resttlted "{ fin in tle rorry death of bearhq fie deeo,sed?No.Ap-16TD-aszg "nd uretfrr'it is

¶35

ii) whether the crime vehicte begruq No.Ap-16TD-g37g was ttaving uatid insurarci bg ttrc date oTacctaent afid. uheutb, i ii ii.iia with respondent No.2?

¶36

iii) Wtether tle.driuer of the crime uehicte was houing uatid driving lieznse to driue the uehicte beaing No.Ap_16-TD-asVa o3 fi* ;;;. of arcident?

¶37

iu) whetler the petitioners are entitted. to claim ampensationfrom the respondent No.l to 3 andif so to what annount aiaftromwlam?

¶38

u) To wltot result?

¶39

To prove their case, the petitioners got exd.mined pwl and,2 and got marked Ex.Al to A5. The respondent No.2 did not add.r.lce any evidence.

¶40

Based on the evidence on record., the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,56,4oo/-. Aggrieved by the sarne, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶41

Erqr MACMA No.59_2021

¶42

¶43

Heard the submission of Sri Mirza Safrulla Baig, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri p. Harinatha Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶44

Learned counsel for appellants has submitted . that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate ttre evidence in a proper perspective and has granted a very meager compensation by assessing the earnings of the deceased as Rs.6,O00/- white the deceased used to earn Rs.1S,OOO/- per month. He further argued that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transportation and that tJle Ttibunal granted very low compensation under various heads. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has passed a well justified order and that in the absence of income proof, the Tribunal has assessed Rs.6,0OO/- as the income of the deceased which is proper and therefore, prayed to confirm the judgment of the Tribunal.

¶46

L2. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

¶47

following points for determination:

¶48

\ 1 Whether the claimants are entitted for enhanrement of aAmpensation? If so, to tDhot ertent?

¶49

\ 2 Whether the ord.er and. decree of tle Tribunal need. any interference?

¶50

;;,, MACMA No.69_2021

¶51

¶52

To ulwt relieJ?

¶53

13. PIOINT NO.1:

¶54

a) The ciaim petitioners in this appeal are aggrieved with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is their case that the deceased used to work as ar agriculturist and used to earn Rs.15,0oo/- per month. However, no proof is filed by the petitioners in this regard.

¶55

b) In Ram,,chqndrappa vs. Manager, Rogar sundaram Alllance rnsuronce conpang Ltmttedl, the Apex court has held t].at in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,soo /- per month can be safely taken as the income. But in the present case, the deceased stated to have been an agriculturist as per the contention of the claim petitioners. In the said case the accident occurred in the year 2oo4, while in the present case, the accident has occurred in the year 2016. Thus, the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.6,ooo/- is found. to be just and proper.

¶56

c) As per the dicta laid down in Nqfj,ono,l rnsurqnce @mpany Llmtted vs. Ptunag setht & other*,2so/o of tJ:e income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 45

¶57

'1zot11 t2scc236

¶58

'^{ArR2olz scc slsT}

¶59

\ .

¶60

Ef6J MACMA No.69_2021

¶61

¶62

¶63

years, adding 2SYo towards future prospects would give Rs.7,500/_ (Rs.6,000/-x 2S/LOO = ISOO/-) per month, which comes to Rs.750O/- x 12 = Rs.9O,OOO/- per annum.

¶64

d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore, 1/3o deduction need to be made to her income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.6O,0O0/_ (Rs.9O,OOO/_ (_) Rs.3O,OOO/-).

¶65

e) The Post Mortem Examination report frled under Ex.A3 reveals the age of ttre deceased as 45 years. As per the evidence of PWl, the deceased-Mangamma was aged about ,S0, years. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as .5O,years, because PWI has deposed as such. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Aadhar Card is filed in this case and that as per the Aadhar Card the age of the deceased is 5O years. But a perusal of the record shows that the petitioners have not Iiled any Aadhar Card in this case. The contention of the appellants counsel is that pwl is a rustic villager and hence. courd not say the correct age of ttre deceased and prayed to consider the documents on record. As per tle documents filed by tJ e claimants under Ex.A3 and A4 i.e., the Inquest Report and pME Report, the age of the deceased is revealed as 45, years and hence, the same has to be taken as the age of the deceased. Therefore, the age as

¶66

ETD,J MACMA No.69_2021

¶67

¶68

revealed under Ex.A3 is taken into consideration. The muttiptier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in sqrla verma a. Derht TYansport cotporqdon3. The deceased being aged 4s years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ,r4,. Thus, the loss of dependency comes up to an extent of Rs.g,4O ,OOOI_.

¶69

f) with regard to the amount to be awarded under the head loss of consortium', in the light of pranag sethi,s case, Rs.l5o0o/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,ooo/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.4O,OO0/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by lovo every three years.

¶70

g) ln Magma Gre,nero,l rnsurance compong Ltmited v. Nanu I?qm @chuhnt Ram and, others4, the Apex court has elaborately thl's case and has further held that not only t].e spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the craimants would get Rs.4g,4oo/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under tlris head would be Rs. L,4s,2oo/- instead of Rs.4o,ooo/-. with regard to amounts to be granted under the heads of funeral

¶71

3 zoog 6)scc l2l

¶72

'1zors1^l8 scc t30

¶73

EID,J MACMA No.59_2021

\ \

expenses Rs.18,15o/- and loss of estate Rs.18,15o/- would be just and proper.

¶78

h) In all, the claimants are entifled to the following

¶79

compensation amounts:

¶80

1.	Compensation of dependency	undertheheadofloss	Rs.8,40,000/-
2.	Compensation consortium	towardslossof	Rs.1,45,200/-
3.	Compensation	towardsloss of estate	Rs.18,150/-
4.	Compensation eKpenses	towardsfuneral	Rs.18,150/-
	Total		Rs.1O,21,5OO/-

¶81

0 The Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,56,4oo/- while the craimants are held to be entitled to a compensation of Rs. ro,2l,50o/- and hence, it is held t.l.at the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation.

¶82

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

¶83

L4. FOINT NO.2:

¶84

It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This court has enhanced tJre compensation to Rs.1o,21,so0/from that of Rs.7,56,4 OO /- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

¶85

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

ff;r MACMANo.69_2021

15.^pTOINT NO.B:

In the result, the MACMA fired by the appellants is parfly ied 31.1O.2O18 in M.v.o.P.No .444 of 2016 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-vl[ Additionat District Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B Nagar, enhancing the compensation from Rs.z,56,4oo/- to Rs.1o,21,5oo/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5^o/o prer annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, t]:e interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellants shall pay the deficit court fee. Respondent Nos.l to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. on such deposit, the appellants are entifled to withdraw t]:e said amount without furnishing any securigr, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. The judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment of deficit Court fee by the appellants. No costs.

¶92

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

¶93

stand closed.

¶94

. OSMAN^ALI TANT /TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To, 1 The District Chairman^{Judge,Ranga Motor ReddYAccident District at L.B.NagarClaims/ Tribuna} um - Vlll^Additional 2. One CC^{to SriMirza Safiulla Baig,Advocate[OPUC]} 3. One CC^{to Sri Hari} nath GuPta,^Advocate loPucl 4. Two CD^CoPies AS/SWT f{r

To,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 11t06t2025

JUDGMENT+OECREE

MACMA.No.69 of 2021

f i
E
.O
i_) t'r iiilll ?m
-L

¶101

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶102

c"d'A k-

¶103

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶104

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶105

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\A EADA

¶106

¶107

N. Bhimaiah, S/o. Chennappa,^{A'/a.56 Yrs, Occ.AgricultureRi/o. H.No.8-} .11618,^{Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy District)}

¶108

N. Pedda Venkataiah, S/o. N.^{Bhimaiah,Ala. 29 Yrs, Occ.Agriculture' (All are} R/o. H.No. 8-1 16/8, Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy^District)

¶109

N. Narsimulu, S/o. N. Bhimaiah, Ala^{27 Yrs, OccAgriculture}

¶110

(All are R/o. H.No.8-116/8, Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy District)

¶111

...APPELLANT(S)

¶112

AND

¶113

P.S.C. Bose Automobiles, rep. by its Managing^{Partner, P.Sudheer S/o. Not} Known, Age.Major, Occ. Business,^Ri/o. D.No. 5+7-75^{B/8, 3rd Road,} Jawahar Autonagar, Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District,^{A.P. State.}

¶114

National lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep, by its Regional Manager, Moghul Courts, Policy No. 56050031 15100070'16 Lorry bearing No. AP 16 78, Valid from 21-01-2016 to20-01-2017 Ehgine No. 31 H84 124594, Chassis No. MAT,!66422D5K09397.

¶115

Venkata Ramana, M.S S/o. Ramana, Age. Major, Occ.Driver,^No.2-529, Arban Nagar, Atmakur, Kumool District, A.P. State -518422.

¶116

...RESPONDENTS

¶117

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, aggrieved^by the Debree and Judgment^passed in M.V.O.P No. 444 of 2016, dated 31/'10/2018, on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims / Tribunal- Cum^- Vlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶118

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the^judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG, Advocate for the Appellants and of SR!. A HARINATH GUPTA appeared for Respondent No.2.

¶119

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶120

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby^partly allowed modifying the order and Degree dt 31/1012018 in M.V.O.P No. 444 of 2016, passed by the Chairman Motor Accident Claims / Tribunal- Cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar enhancing compensation of Rs.7,56,400/- to RS. 10,21,500/- and the enhanced amount the compensation shall carry interest at the rate @ 7.5^{o/o p.a.} from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶121

That however, the interest for the^period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

¶122

That the appellants shall^pay the deficit Court fee.

¶123

That the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a^period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited

¶124

That on such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without fumishing any security as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

¶125