Common Judgment:

1. These Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), assailing the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.486 of 2013, dated 09.12.2015.

MACMA No.1464 of 2026:

2.1 Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization as claimed by the appellant – petitioner in the O.P., ought to have taken the earnings of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and ought to have applied multiplier ‘15’. The learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of care, guidance, affection and love, Rs.2,00,000/- towards pecuniary damages, Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation charges, ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 24% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Kaminiben and others vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174) and prayed to enhance the amount.

MACMA No.1712 of 2016:

               2.2 Learned counsel for the appellant – respondent No.2 - insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore the policy do not cover the risk of the deceased. Learned Tribunal ought to have seen that Ex.A5 policy clearly indicates that the policy was issued for goods carrying motorized three-wheeler, erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the case of (i) The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt.K.Kathalamma and others (MACMA No.1490 of 2009 dated 19.06.2023 in the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad) and (ii) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Bandi Thirupathi and two others (MACMA No.1799 of 2011 dated 27.03.2024 in the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad) and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 in MACMA.No.1464 of 2016 and respondent No.2 in MACMA.No.1712 of 2016 failed to advance his arguments in spite of granting opportunity.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner in MACMA.No.1464 of 2016 has filed calculation memo showing enhancement of compensation in support of his contention.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in MACMA.No.1464 of 2016 will be hereinafter referred to as appellant – petitioner and respondents.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

7. Now the points for consideration are:

               1. Whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the appellant-petitioner?

               2. Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality? if so, does it require interference of this Court?

8. Appellant - petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166(1)(c) of MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

9. Appellant - petitioner is examined as PW1, examined PW2-M.Narsu Bai [eyewitness] and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent No.1 is examined as RW1, the officer of the respondent No.2 is examined as RW2 - K.Raja Narayan Rao and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

10. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, arrived annual income at Rs.72,000/- (6,000 x 12), deducted 50% towards her personal expenses as the dependent is only one and arrived at Rs.36,000/- (72,000 x 50%), taken the age of the deceased as 55 years by considering Ex.A4 - PME report and Ex.A3 - inquest report, applied multiplier ‘11’ and arrived at Rs.3,96,000/- (36,000 x 11). Apart from the above, awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, in total awarded an amount of Rs.4,96,000/- towards compensation payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit.

11. RW1 – A.Ashok stated in his chief examination that he is the owner of the crime vehicle and that his vehicle is falsely implicated in the case. In the cross-examination done by appellant-petitioner counsel before the learned Tribunal he admitted that on 16.08.2012 he surrendered the driver of the vehicle before police and obtained bail, police has also filed charge sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle and the driver was possessing valid driving license. In the cross - examination done by respondent No.2 counsel, he stated that Ramulu is not the driver of the auto, the auto is not involved in the accident and he do not know Ramulu.

12. RW2 – K.Raja Narayan Rao is the Branch Manager of respondent No.2, his evidence is that no accident has taken place and Ramulu is not the driver of the auto. Crime vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle, deceased or any other person cannot travel. Deceased traveled in the goods vehicle, thus the appellant-petitioner is not entitled for compensation. In the cross-examination done by the appellant-petitioner counsel before the Tribunal he stated that the policy is in force as on the date of accident, police has filed charge sheet against the driver of the auto, Ex.B2 is the package policy having coverage of third party and he do not know that the first respondent and the police have furnished them all the documents required.

13. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed by the police against G.Ramulu, who happened to be the driver of the crime vehicle. In view of the admission made by RW1 in the cross-examination that he himself handed over the driver of the crime vehicle to the police and obtained bail, it cannot be said that G.Ramulu is not the driver of the crime vehicle.

14. Except the evidence of the appellant – petitioner as PW1, there is no other evidence placed by her to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as a coolie. The learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, this Court is not interfering with the said portion. Ex.A3 is CC of inquest panchanama and Ex.A4 is CC of PME report, which goes to show that the age of the deceased as 55 years. The age of the deceased is also mentioned as 55 years in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier ‘11’. The learned Tribunal has not awarded future prospects to the deceased and awarded more amount towards loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, which has to be scaled down in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 16 SCC 680).

15. Learned Tribunal has lost sight of Ex.A2 - charge sheet wherein the driver of the crime vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and he was charged under Section 181 of MV Act.

16.1 In Kaminiben1 Supreme Court observed that the insurance company to pay the amount first and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle when the victim is a gratuitous passenger.

               16.2 In Kathalamma2 this Court has held that the insurance company is exonerated holding that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation in case of a gratuitous passenger.

               16.3 In Bandi Thirupathi3 this Court has directed the insurance company not to claim the deposited amount and remaining amount of 50% of compensation shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle by the claimants.

17. The Tribunal ought to have ordered that respondent No.2 – Insurance Company to pay the compensation first and then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle, instead thereof has ordered jointly and severally, that portion is set aside.

18. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under:

“TABLE”

19. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another ((2019) 17 SCC 465). Hence points are answered accordingly.

20. In the result, MACMA.No.1464 of 2016 is allowed and MACMA.No.1712 of 2016 is dismissed and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced as under:

               a) The impugned award dated 09.12.2015, passed in M.V.O.P.No.486 of 2013, stands modified.

               b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.4,96,000/- is enhanced to Rs.5,12,600/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.

               c) Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount first with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then recover the same from the respondent No.1 - owner of the crime vehicle.

               d) Appellant – petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.

Interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed. No costs.