Telangana High Court
S.Malleshwari And 4 Others vs M.Manohar And Another on 14 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.29 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
–
Heard Sri V.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri V.Venkatarami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused
the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved
by the order, dated 08.08.2013 passed in O.P.No.1023 of 2007 by the
learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal
District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short,
‘the Tribunal’).
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed claim
petition seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents
jointly and severally with interest on account of death of one S.Srinivas
in a road traffic accident which occurred on 03.08.2007 at about 8:30
P.M. On the said date, the deceased was driving car bearing No.AP 9F
3577, which was owned by respondent No.3, and while the deceased was
travelling from Toopran to Hyderabad and on reaching the outskirts of
Imampur Village on NH7, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP25T 5346,
which was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2,
came in opposite direction at high speed and dashed the car due to
2
which the deceased died on the spot. Due to the death of the deceased,
the appellants filed the claim petition.
4. The appellants got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1
to A6. The respondents got examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked
Exs.B1 to B4. The Tribunal examined the oral and documentary
evidence and awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at
7.5% per annum fixing the liability on respondent No.1 alone. The claim
petition is dismissed against respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same,
the present appeal is preferred.
5. In grounds of appeal, the appellants contended that the Tribunal
erred in not fixing the liability on respondent No.2-insurance company,
by ordering pay and recovery from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Further, it is alleged that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects,
loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate. As such,
prayed that the compensation be enhanced.
6. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the ratio laid down in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh 1 is
squarely applicable to the present case in fixing liability on the owner of
the crime vehicle, while ordering the insurance company to pay the
compensation at the first instance and then recover the same from the
1
2004(2)ALD 36
3
owner. In addition, the learned counsel emphasized that the Tribunal
failed to consider future prospects, loss of consortium and loss of estate
etc.
7. In response, learned counsel for the insurance company argued
that the Tribunal has considered the issue of pay and recovery and then
proceeded to fix liability on the owner alone. As such, prayed that the
order passed by the Tribunal be confirmed.
8. Firstly, coming to the issue of liability to pay compensation, the
Tribunal considered the legal ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India and various High Courts in Swaran Singh (supra 1),
National Insurance Company Limited v. Annappa Irappa Nesharia 2,
Dadi Komuravva and others v. Garshe Buchaiah 3, Jayaprakash
Agarwal and others v. Mohd. Kaleemulla and others 4, New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Siddarapu Gangaiah (died) per LRs.
and others 5, National Insurance Company Limited, Tirupathi v.
M.A.Annapurnamma and others 6, New India Assurance Company
Limited v. Balakrishnan and others 7 and Oriental Insurance
Company Limited v. Puran and others 8, and concluded that pay and
recovery is an exceptional jurisdiction exercised by the superior Courts
2
2008(1)ALD 142
3
2013(4) ALT 327
4
2012(3) ALT 494
5
2012(4)ALD 60
6
2012(5) ALD 128
7
2012 ACJ 2441
8
2012 ACJ 451
4
and declined to exercise such jurisdiction and therefore, ordered the
owner alone to pay the compensation. When there is valid insurance
policy which was in force at the time of accident, as per judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh‘s case (supra 1), the insurance
company has to satisfy the decree at first instance and recover the
awarded amount from the owner or driver of the crime vehicle by
following due process of law. The instant case is no exception and
therefore, the order of the Tribunal is to be modified to the said extent.
9. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the appellants did not
challenge the monthly income taken into consideration by the Tribunal
at Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, the same need not be interfered with.
10. The age of the deceased is 26 years as on the date of the accident.
As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others 9, if future
prospects at 40% is added to the annual income, the net annual income
comes to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.36,000/- + 14,400/-). Since there are four
dependents on the deceased, if 1/4th of the income is deducted towards
personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family
would be Rs.37,800/-. If the said amount is multiplied by the
appropriate multiplier ’17’, as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
9
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
5
Corporation 10, the total compensation under the head of ‘loss of
dependency’ would be Rs.6,42,600/-.
11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, the same
need not be interfered with. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards
loss of consortium and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Further, a
sum of Rs.6,000/- was awarded towards transportation and funeral
expenses and the said amount is increased to Rs.25,000/-. In addition,
appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to payment of filial consortium of
Rs.44,000/- each and appellant Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to payment of
parental consortium of Rs.44,000/- each. In total, the appellants are
entitled to Rs.9,08,600/- towards compensation.
12. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.9,08,600/-
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. However, the appellants are not entitled for interest for the
delay period in preferring the appeal as per order dated 11.04.2025 in
I.A.No.2 of 2023. The enhanced compensation amount shall be
deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On
such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount
as apportioned by the Tribunal, without furnishing any security.
10
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
6
However, the appellants are directed to pay the deficit Court-fee on the
enhanced compensation.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand
closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 14.07.2025
ssp