##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

M.A.C.M.A.No.3356 of 2019 DATE: 06.04.2026

Between:

Smt. Moddubai Laxmi and another …..Appellants AND

Sangolla Gangaram and another

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants against

the order and decree dated 12.02.2019 passed in O.P.No.835 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, whereby a total compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum was awarded for the death of one Moddubai Poshetty (hereinafter referred to as “the

deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.07.2013 at about 2:00 p.m., while the deceased was crossing the road in front of Government Hospital, Bodhan, a TVS XL moped bearing No.AP-25- AM-1921, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against

2

him, resulting in grievous injuries. Though he was initially shifted to Government Hospital, Bodhan, he succumbed to injuries while being shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The claimants, being the wife and daughter of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.4,70,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have

filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company

and perused the record.

4. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle and that the respondents are liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the said finding has attained finality. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- in the absence of documentary proof. However, considering the nature of work of the deceased as a Muneem/Clerk and the year of accident

3

i.e., 2013, this Court is of the view that the income fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased is reasonably re-assessed at Rs.4,000/-. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 1(2017) 16 SCC 680, an addition of 25% towards future prospects is to be made since the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.5,000/- (Rs.4,000 + Rs.1,000) and the annual income would be Rs.60,000/-. After deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.40,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased as 50 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘13’. Therefore, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.40,000 x 13 = Rs.5,20,000/-. Further, as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants-claimants are also entitled to Rs.91,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under the conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is re-calculated as Rs.6,11,000/-

(Rs.5,20,000/- + 91,000).

6. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contends that the claimants had sought only

4

Rs.6,00,000/- and therefore compensation cannot exceed the amount claimed. However, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2011) 10 SCC 756 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC), and considering that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benef