Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1063 (TS)

Bodanapally Lavanya v. A. Shivaiah

2025-09-22

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the petitioners/claimants under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.P.No.156 of 2011, dated 21.06.2013, seeking compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- on account of the death of Bodanapally Swamy Nath Reddy @ Sai Nath Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in an accident that occurred on 04.12.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed O.P.No.156 of 2011 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 & Rule 455 of M.V.Rules, 1989 r/w Sec.140 of seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Tipper bearing registration No.AP-23-U-4455. It is contended that on 04.12.2010, the deceased was riding Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.AP-31-AP-2713 and when the deceased reached Quthubullapur, the driver of the Tipper bearing No.AP-23-U-4455 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dash the deceased’s motorcycle, due to which the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police registered a case against the driver of the Tipper and made him responsible for the accident. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads. 3. The contention of the appellants/petitioners before the Tribunal was that, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 26 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a Driver in Reddy’s Polymers Proceedings Limited, Hyderabad. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners were put to pain and mental agony and petitioners lost financial support. Hence, the petitioners filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- from the respondents. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondent No.1 & 2 filed counter- affidavits, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondent No.1 & 2 filed counter- affidavits, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the deceased by name Bodanapally Swamynath Reddy died in accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper bearing No.AP.23.U.4455? ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount from whom? iii) To what relief? 6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioners, the wife of the deceased i.e, petitioner No.1 herself examined as P.W.1. PW.2 & Pw.3 were also examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of appellants. On behalf of the respondents, none examined. Ex.B1-Insurane Policy was marked. 7. After going into the merits and considering the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper driver and awarded compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum. 8. Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed among the other grounds that the learned Tribunal did not consider the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month as per Ex.A6-Salalry Certificate and further that petitioner have proved that the salary of the deceased by examining PW.2-H.R.Executive in Reddy’s Polymers Processing Limited and further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not added prospects to the monthly income of the deceased as per National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 and further contended that learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 10. Heard Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri C.Buchi Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. None appeared for respondent No.1. 11. 10. Heard Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri C.Buchi Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. None appeared for respondent No.1. 11. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, it can be deem that there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and the nature of the accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly assess the monthly income of the deceased? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 & 2: 12. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 04.12.2010. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as driver in Reddy Polymers Processing Limited, however as per Ex.A.6 – (3) three months salary certificate for the month September, October and November for the year 2010, wherein the salary for the month of September was recorded as Rs.9,025 and for October and November were recorded as Rs.5,315/-, hence the learned Tribunal did not consider the contentions of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- and taken the income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month. 13. In Shaikh Sadik Shaik Rafique v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others , [2025 SCC Online SC 1092] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount of the deceased, who was unskilled labour to Rs.10,000/- per month, and the relevant paragraph No.5 reads as under for read reference: “5. Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited determined an income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004 for a coolie. A Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others found that there would be an incremental increase in the income which according to us would be reasonable if fixed at Rs.500/- per month for every successive year. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2015, 11 years after 2004 and going by the principles stated in the afore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilled worker would be entitled to claim monthly income of Rs.10,000/-” 14. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2015, 11 years after 2004 and going by the principles stated in the afore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilled worker would be entitled to claim monthly income of Rs.10,000/-” 14. In view of recent judgment, dated 13.05.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaik Rafique’s case (cited supra) and looking at the avocation of the deceased, this Court is inclined to enhance the income of the deceased granted by the Tribunal from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month for re-assessment of the compensation. 15. On keen perusal of the Tribunal order, 21.06.2013, the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly average wages of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- as stated in the paragraph No.9 of the order, however, the learned Tribunal has miss the sight of adding future prospects to the income of the deceased as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , [ 2017 ACJ 2700 ] , accordingly, this Court is inclined to add additional 40% income to the monthly income of the deceased. 16. Accordingly, considering the age of the deceased as 28 years, additional 40% of the income is added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.12,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.12,600/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are three in number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.1,51,200/- (-) Rs.50,400/-). 17. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)] , and considering the age of the deceased as 28 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased’s age is ‘17’. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.17,13,600/- (1,00,800/- x 17). 18. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 19. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.17,13,600/- (1,00,800/- x 17). 18. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 19. The appellant No.1 being the spouse of the deceased, the appellant No.1 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of ‘loss of spousal consortium’, as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 20. The appellant No.2 being the mother of the deceased, the appellant No.2 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’, as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 21. The appellant No.3 being the sister of the deceased, the appellant No.3 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of ‘loss of sibling consortium’, as per Pranay Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra). 22. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions. This Court is of opinion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference 23. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) Annual Income (of the deceased) Rs.9,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,08,000/- ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) = Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/- = Rs.1,51,200/- iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income – 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,51,200/- (–) Rs.50,400/- = Rs.1,00,800/- iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.1,00,800/- x 17 = Rs. 17, 13, 600/ - v) Claimants’ entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of Spousal consortium + Loss of parental consortium + loss of sibling consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.48,400/- + Rs.48,400/- = Rs. 1, 81, 500/ - vi) Medical Bills Rs. 1, 45, 000/ - Total Rs. 18, 95, 100/ - 24. Though the claimants claimed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- but as per the assessment made by this Court, the claimants are entitled for amount of Rs.18,95,100/- which is a just and fair compensation. 1, 81, 500/ - vi) Medical Bills Rs. 1, 45, 000/ - Total Rs. 18, 95, 100/ - 24. Though the claimants claimed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- but as per the assessment made by this Court, the claimants are entitled for amount of Rs.18,95,100/- which is a just and fair compensation. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh , [ 2003 (2) SCC 274 ] , that the compensation can be awarded more than the claimed amount”. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.18,95,100/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.8,56,000/- by the learned Tribunal. 25. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 8,56,000/- to Rs.18,95,100/- (Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and One hundred rupees only) with interest at the rate @ 7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. However, the claimants are directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.