M/S. Bajaj Allianz General vs Jangam Padmamma And 7 Others on 4 July, 2025

Telangana High Court

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General vs Jangam Padmamma And 7 Others on 4 July, 2025

                                 1


      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.375 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 01.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2017

passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX

Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy (for short “the Tribunal”) .

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

29.08.2009 the deceased-Narsimulu along with his wife and son

were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP-22U-0348 from Atmakur

towards Jurala Village and on the way at around 13:00 hours,

when the said auto was proceeding in the limits of Jurala Village,

the driver of the auto has driven it in a rash and negligent manner,

at a high speed, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained

injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital for

treatment and he succumbed to injuries on 05.09.2009, while

undergoing treatment. The claimants have sought compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. Respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments of

the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age,
ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
2

avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that

the deceased was sub-conscious due to over consumption of

alcohol and fell on the ground under the impact of alcohol. Thus,

they have disputed the accident and contended that they are not

liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the

following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP-22U-0348
had no valid driving license as on the date of accident and
therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation
to the petitioners?

2. Whether the said Auto Rickshaw had no valid permit to run the
same as on the date of the accident and therefore the respondents
are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation against the
respondents as prayed for?

4. If so, to what relief?

7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2

and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

8. Based the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.6,77,500/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel

for the Insurance Company and Sri Madhirala Vishnu Vardhan

Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
3

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

deceased was under intoxicated condition. His contention is that

Ex.B2 itself clearly mentions that the deceased was under the

impact of alcohol due to which he fell down and sustained injuries.

Thus he disputed the accident itself and relied upon Ex.B2 to

prove his contention. He argued that it is mentioned in

Ex.B2/case record that the deceased was in an intoxicated

condition. He further argued that originally the O.P was filed at

Gadwal Court in 2009, but it was dismissed for default,

subsequently another O.P was filed at Wanaparthy.

11. He further argued that the multiplier for 41-45 years is ’14’

and that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the compensation by

applying the multiplier of ’15’. He further argued that the

calculation done by the Tribunal is wrong and that the interest

awarded by the Tribunal is very high @ 12%. Thus, prayed to

reduce the compensation and also the rate of interest.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand

has submitted that the crime record under Exs.A1 to A4 are not

disputed, which prove the occurrence of the accident. He further

argued that Ex.B2 that is filed before the Tribunal was a Xerox

Copy and thus cannot be relied upon. The doctor who has issued

Ex.B2 is also not examined and hence, Ex.B2 is not proved. He

further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to more amount
ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
4

of compensation and prayed to consider the guidelines of Apex

Court laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi & Others and Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others.

13. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise

for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the deceased was in intoxicated condition, if so,
whether his intoxicated condition contributed to the accident
resulting in his death?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable?

3. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any
interference ?

4. To what relief ?

14. Point No.1:

a) The contention of insurer is that deceased fell down in an

intoxicated condition and thus sustained injuries. In support of

the said contention Ex.B2 is filed. In Ex.B2/case record it is

mentioned that the deceased is under the impact of alcohol and is

subconscious. Thus he disputed the accident itself. But Ex.B2

shows that the deceased was examined by the doctor on

30.08.2009 at the Area Hospital, Wanaparthy while the accident

occurred on 29.08.2009 at about 13:00 hours. So the contention of

the counsel appears to be false. It cannot be held that at the time

of accident he was under intoxicated condition as per Ex.B2. The

contention of claimant’s counsel is that it is a Xerox copy and

cannot be relied upon. However, it is observed that it pertains to
ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
5

30.08.2009, while the accident has occurred on 29.08.2009.

Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that the

deceased was under intoxication at the time of accident and that

the accident occurred due to his own negligence.

b) Thus it is held that there was no contributory negligence on

part of the deceased in the occurrence of accident.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.2:-

a) PW1 is the first wife of the deceased. It is asserted by PW1

that the deceased was a Labourer, earning an amount of Rs.300/-

per day. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as

Rs.4,500/- per month.

b) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Apex Court has held

that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a

labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income.

In the present case also the deceased is a daily wage labourer.

Thus, the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.4,500/- per

month is found to be just and proper.

1
(2011) 12 SCC 236
ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
6

c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 25% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 45

years, adding 25% towards future prospects i.e., 4500+1,125

would give Rs.5,625/- per month, which comes to Rs.5,625/- x 12

= Rs.67,500/- per annum.

d) The number of claimants herein are six and therefore, 1/5th

deduction need to be made to her income towards personal

expenses and this would come up to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.67,500/- (-)

Rs.13,500/-).

e) The Post Mortem Examination Report filed under Ex.A3

reveals the age of the deceased as ’45’ years. The multiplier should

be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased as per column

No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation 3, the deceased being aged ’45’ years, the appropriate

multiplier is ’14’. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed as

Rs.7,56,000/- (Rs.54,000 x 14).

f) In the light of Pranay Sethi‘s case, Rs.15000/- towards loss

of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and

2
AIR 2017 SCC 5157

3
2009 (6) SCC 121
ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
7

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and

the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.

g) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 4, the Apex Court has elaborately

discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi‘s case and has

further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children

of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore,

in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each

towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount

under this head would be Rs.2,90,400/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.

Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. Thus the

total amount of compensation comes upto Rs.10,82,700/-, while

the tribunal has awarded Rs.6,77,500/-.

h) The present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company

and there is no appeal or Cross Objection filed by the claimants.

i) Now the question is whether the compensation can be

enhanced in the absence of any cross appeal by the claimants.

j) In Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and Ors. Vs. Ahmedabad

Municipal Transport Service 5, the claimants who are the legal

heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and

4
(2018) 18 SCC 130
5
(2013) 16 SCC 719
ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
8

the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,51,300/- along with interest

towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment the

respondents has filed an Appeal before the High Court and the

High Court has partly allowed the Appeal of the respondent and

reduced the compensation to Rs.2,51,800/-. Being aggrieved by

this Judgment, the legal representatives of the deceased filed Civil

Appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has awarded the

compensation more than that claimed by the petitioners and

further has held that, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and

the Appellate Court to award just and reasonable compensation to

the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship

and agony. It has further held that without a claimants appeal

also, it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate

Court to award just and reasonable compensation.

k) Similarly, in Surekha and Ors. Vs. Santosh and Ors 6, the

claimants case was allowed by the Tribunal awarding a

compensation of Rs.40,17,602/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the

Insurance Company has filed an appeal before the High Court

wherein, the High Court has held that the claimants are entitled to

Rs.49,15,376/-, but has held that the High Court cannot enlarge

the scope of the appeal and cannot enhance the compensation

more than that awarded by the Tribunal, in an appeal filed by the

Insurance Company. However, the appeal preferred by the
6
(2021) 166 SCC 467
ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
9

Insurance Company claiming reduction of compensation was

dismissed. When the matter reached Apex Court, it has held that

in the matters of Motor Accident Claims, the Court should not take

hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is

awarded to the claimants. By holding so, the Apex Court has

modified the order passed by the High Court to the effect that the

compensation amount payable to the appellants is determined as

Rs.49,85,376/- with interest thereon as awarded by the High

Court.

l) In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Vs. Dusari

Pramila and Another 7, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation

of Rs.9,00,000/- and aggrieved by the same, the Insurance

Company has preferred an appeal before this High Court. It was

held that even in the absence of Cross Appeal or Cross Objection

filed by the respondents, it is pertinent to consider the jurisdiction

of this Court to grant just compensation and has enhanced the

compensation from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.15,82,600/- with an

interest of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

m) Applying the above cited decisions, compensation is

enhanced in the present case, though the claimants have not filed

any appeal or cross objections.

7
MACMA.No.88 of 2014

ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
10

n) In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following

compensation amounts:-

1. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Rs.7,56,000/-

2. Compensation towards loss of consortium to the Rs.2,90,400/-

petitioner

3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-

4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-

                        Total                                                 Rs.10,82,700/-




o)        Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are

entitled is calculated as Rs.10,82,700/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.6,77,500/-. Thus, it is opined that the petitioners are

entitled for enhancement of compensation.

Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

16. POINT NO.3:

a) In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2, it is held

that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with

regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced

the compensation to Rs.10,82,700/- from that of Rs.6,77,500/-

i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has granted interest at

the rate of 12% on the quantum of compensation and the

contention of the appellant counsel is that it is too high.

b) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and

Another 8; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted

8
2022 SCC Online TS 606
ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
11

interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of

compensation.

c) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath

Suresh and Others 9 and National Insurance Company Limited

Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 10; also interest @ 7.5%

per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.

d) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam

Lingaiah 11; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9%

per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

e) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 12; has granted

7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till

realization.

f) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court

has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the

compensation that is awarded in such cases.

g) Hence, the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate

of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.5%.

9
2023 SCC Online TS 1095
10
2023 SCC Online TS 1170
11
2024 SCC Online TS 915
12
2024 SCC Online TS 2050
ETD,J
MACMA No.375_2021
12

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

17. POINT NO.4:

In the result, the appeal is disposed off, modifying the Order

and Decree dated 01.06.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2017 passed by

the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional

District Judge, Wanaparthy by reducing the rate of interest from

12% to 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till

realization. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.6,77,500/- to

10,82,700/-. However, the interest for the period of delay if any, is

forfeited. The respondent-claimant shall pay the deficit Court fee.

The appellant-Insurance Company is 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 respondent-claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount

without furnishing any security.

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

stand closed.

_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Date: 04.07.2025
ds