THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.597 of 2022 vide judgment and decree, dated

01.09.2025, the appellants/ petitioners filed the present appeal.

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

3. The petitioners, who are the wife, children and father of one Manimadde Saidulu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) filed a claim-petition under Section 166 read with 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.03.2002 while he was proceeding on his Luna one Lorry bearing No.APL 7676 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, due to which he died. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the dependents of the deceased, have filed the aforesaid claim-petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.

4. The learned Tribunal after considering the contents of the claim-petition, counter filed by respondent No.2 and the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it granted an amount of Rs.2,46,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the petitioners filed this appeal.

5. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri T.Narsi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased was working as attender in Mother Teresa MPHW (female) Training Institute at Nalgonda since 1998 and as per the Salary Certificate under Ex.A.8 he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,691/-. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the petitioners have proved Ex.A8 by examining the Principal of Mother Teresa Institute at Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar as P.W.3 and the original service register of the deceased as Ex.A.9 and also marked Ex.A.10, the extract copy of the G.O, evidencing the shifting of Institute from Nagarjuna Sagar to Nalgonda were also marked through P.W.3. It is further submitted that by considering the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.A8, the Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,691/- per month and adding future prospects and accordingly calculate the compensation. Thus, prayed to allow the appeal.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners filed the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.A8 and as per Ex.A8, the deceased was getting salary of Rs.3,691/- per month. Therefore, considering Ex.A8 coupled with the evidence of P.W.3, this court finds it reasonable to take income of the deceased as Rs.3,691/- per month. Apart from the same, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the petitioners are also entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects as the deceased was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,167/- (Rs.3,691/- + Rs.1476/-). From this, 1/4^th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are four in number. After deducting 1/4^th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,875/- per month and Rs.46,500/- per annum. Since the age of the

1 2017 ACJ 2700

2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

deceased was 30 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra). Adopting mu