Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 59 (TS)

Bapare Sarojani v. Peddalodi Mahender

2026-01-09

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

body2026
ORDER : Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J. This MACMA is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Award, dt.22.10.2021, in MVOP.No.242 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy, seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.9,47,500/- to Rs.15,00,000/-, as sought for in the claim petition. 2. Heard Ms Nikita Goenka, learned counsel appearing for Sri R.Vinod Reddy, for the appellants, and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent-Insurance Company. None appeared for respondent No.1. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimants being the wife, daughter, sons, and mother of the deceased- Bapare Babu Rao, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in a road accident that occurred on 20.06.2018. 6. On the fateful day, the deceased, along with his co-driver one Shiva Sharanaiah, had loaded steel pipes in a lorry bearing No.MH 25 B 9110 with Steel Pipes at Chegunta and was proceeding to Mumbai and on the way, they stopped the lorry on NH.No.65 within the limits of Kandi Village near Punjab Haryana Dhaba and at about 11.30 p.m., while the deceased, was crossing the road, after having meals, towards his parked lorry, he was hit by a Royal Enfield Motor Cycle bearing No.TS 15 EM 7255, which came from Sangareddy towards Hyderabad, in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the deceased fell on the road and succumbed to injuries. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy for treatment, where he died while undergoing treatment at about 12.46 a.m. 7. The police of Sangareddy P.S., registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2018 against the rider of Royal Enfield Motor Cycle bearing No.TS 15 EM 7255 under Section 304-A IPC and upon investigation laid a charge sheet. 8. The police of Sangareddy P.S., registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2018 against the rider of Royal Enfield Motor Cycle bearing No.TS 15 EM 7255 under Section 304-A IPC and upon investigation laid a charge sheet. 8. The claimants contended that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale & healthy, aged about 45 years and was working as a driver under Waseemuddin, resident of Basavakalyan, and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m, but on account of the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants lost their sole earning member and were put to great financial hardship and that the 1 st respondent being the owner of the offending motor cycle and 2 nd respondent being its insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 9. The Tribunal, after due enquiry and upon appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A6, along with Ex.B1/insurance policy for the 2nd respondent, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent and as the insurance policy under Ex.B1 was in force as on the date of accident, the Tribunal fixed joint and several liability on respondents No.1 & 2 and awarded compensation of Rs.9,47,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation to grant just and fair compensation. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants contended that though the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of 1 st respondent and fixed joint and several liability on the respondents No.1 & 2, but however had erred in awarding a meager compensation of Rs.9,47,500/- by erroneously assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.20,000/- p.m., as claimed. It is further contended that the Tribunal, without properly considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 awarded only fixed sums of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- under the conventional heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, and urging these grounds, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation as prayed in the instant appeal. 12. 12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent-insurance company submitted that in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the alleged income of the deceased, the Tribunal committed no error in assessing the earnings of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/- pm., and thus contended that the findings of the Tribunal are well considered and needs no interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. The stand of the 1st respondent before the Tribunal was one of total denial of the averments in the claim petition and contended that the he was the owner of the offending vehicle and was having valid license and there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy and in the event of any award being passed, the liability, if any, be fastened against the 2 nd respondent alone and on these grounds, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 14. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the record. 15. In view of the findings of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle and the liability being fixed on respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally, as it is the appeal filed by the claimants, the only point needs to be determined is – “whether the appellants/ claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation” 16. A perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the claimants did not adduce any documentary evidence to establish the earnings of the deceased, though contended that he was working as driver and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. In Malakappa vs The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another , 2025 INSC 590 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the absence of any evidence to establish the earnings of the deceased, has assessed the loss of earnings @ Rs.8,000/- p.m. In the instant case also, having regard to the nature of work of the deceased as a driver, this Court is of the considered view that it is just and reasonable to fix the monthly income of the deceased @ 8,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.6,000/- p.m., as fixed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the award needs modification. 17. 17. As the per Ex.A1, the age of the deceased was shown as 47 years and as per Ex.A4, as 48 years, both of which fall within the age bracket of 40-50 years. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi ’s case (supra) an addition of 25% towards future prospects is warranted, which works out to Rs.2,000/-. Thus, the monthly loss of earnings of the deceased would be to Rs.10,000/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.2,000/-). 18. As the number of dependents are five, the deduction of 1/4 th towards personal expenses, as adopted by the Tribunal, is proper. Accordingly, 1/4th towards of monthly earnings of the deceased towards personal expenses comes to Rs.2,500/- (Rs.10,000 X 1/4 th ). Thus, actual contribution of the deceased to his family members would be Rs.7,500/- (Rs.10,000/- -Rs.2,500/-). Considering the age of the deceased as falling between 46 and 50 years, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘13’ in terms of the guidelines issued in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corp. , 2009 (6) SCC 121 . Thus, the total loss of earnings of the deceased works out to Rs.11,70,000/-(Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 13). 19. Further, under the conventional head of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has erred in granting a fixed sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, andRs.15,000/- to the claimants, as is contrary to the law laid in Pranay Sethi ’s case(supra), which was further clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors , (2018) 18 SCC 130 that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, with an enhancement @ 10% every three years( i.e., for each three year block period). 20. In the instant case, since, the accident occurred after the judgment in Pranay Sethi’ s case(supra), this Court feels that the date of accident i.e., 20.06.2018, should be taken as base date for calculating the applicable three-year block periods for enhancement. Thus, as of date, approximately six years and six months have elapsed, constituting two full block periods of three years each. Thus, each petitioner is entitled for consortium amount of Rs.48,400/- [First block: Rs.40,000/- + 10% = Rs.44,000/-; Second block: Rs.44,000/- + 10% = Rs.48,400/-]. Thus, as of date, approximately six years and six months have elapsed, constituting two full block periods of three years each. Thus, each petitioner is entitled for consortium amount of Rs.48,400/- [First block: Rs.40,000/- + 10% = Rs.44,000/-; Second block: Rs.44,000/- + 10% = Rs.48,400/-]. Similarly, for loss of estate & funeral expenses, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.18,150/- (First block: Rs.15,000/- + 10% =Rs.16,500/-; Second block: Rs.16,500/- + 10% = Rs.18,150/-) under each head. 21. In view of the above findings, the compensation amount is recalculated as under: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 Income Rs.8,000/- per month 2 Future prospects Rs.2,000/- (25 % X 8,000) 22. Coming to the rate of interest of 7.5 % granted by the Tribunal, as the same is in terms of Pranay Sethi ’s case (supra), it is just and proper. 23. Accordingly, the MACMA is PARTLY ALLOWED, modifying the Award of the Tribunal by enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,47,500/- to Rs.14,48,300/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation amount in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.242 of 2018. All other conditions of the Award along with withdrawal of the amounts by the claimants, remains unaltered. The respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.