Telangana High Court

Mr.Bodire Shankar, And 3 Others vs Jyothi Munagala, And Another on 1 August, 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                  M.A.C.M.A.NO.303 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellants-claimants being

aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated 26.11.2018, in

M.V.O.P.No.477 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizamabad (for

short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claimants were awarded an

amount of Rs.15,42,000/- as compensation with interest

@7.5% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2016

Bodire Prashanth (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased')

was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing

No.AP-16-CN-9678 along with one Prakash, who was riding

the said motorcycle and when they reached near Sainath

Society on the outskirts of Quthbullapur, at about 2:00 PM

the driver of the truck lorry bearing No.AP-24-W-4083 parked

the vehicle in the middle of the road at turning point

negligently without putting any signals, indicators etc., due to

which rider of the motorcycle came in contact with the said

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

truck, as a result of which the deceased along with the rider

of the motorcycle fell down from vehicle and received injuries

all over the body. The deceased also sustained fracture of

skull, fracture of nasal bone and other multiple and grievous

injuries all over the body.

3. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was

shifted to Narayana Hrudayala Hospital, Secunderabad,

where the deceased died on the same day at about 7:40 PM

while undergoing treatment. The appellants-claimants

incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment and

transportation of the dead body. The appellants, being father,

mother, sister and brother of the deceased stated that the

accident has occurred due to negligent parking of lorry

bearing No.AP-24-W-4083, by its driver in the middle of the

road without taking any precautions. The police Dundigal

registered a case in Crime No.339 of 2016 under Section 304-

A of IPC.

4. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged

about 20 years, pursuing B.Tech final year in Malla Reddy

College of Engineering and Technology and he also received

offer of appointment in M/s. Micro Spark Solutions. The

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

deceased also used to earn an amount of Rs.40,000/- per

month and contributing the same to the family for

maintenance. Due to the death of the deceased, the

appellants lost their love and affection, financial support and

suffered mental agony, as such the appellants claimed an

amount of Rs.30,00,000/- towards compensation for the

death of the deceased.

5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the

Tribunal. Notice sent to respondent No.1 was returned

unserved. Hence, notice against respondent No.1 is dispensed

with.

6. Respondent No.2 - insurance company filed

counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the petition

and also denied as to the nature of the accident and

involvement of the crime vehicle. It is also pleaded that the

driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle without holding

any valid and effective driving licence. It is stated that the

compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and

hence, he prays to dismiss the O.P.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal

framed the following issues for consideration:

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

"1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of Truck lorry bearing No.AP-24-W-4083 by its driver

causing death of 'Bodire Prashanth?

2. Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation? If so,

to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief."

8. On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12. On behalf of

respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1-copy of

insurance policy was marked.

9. Having considered the entire material placed on

record, particularly the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with

Exs.A.1 to A.4, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the

accident has occurred due to negligence of driver of truck

lorry bearing No.AP-24-W-4083 stationed in the middle of the

road, as such he is responsible for the accident and

accordingly, granted an amount of Rs.15,42,000/- towards

compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved and

unsatisfied with compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the

appellants-claimants preferred the present appeal.

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

10. Heard Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel

for the appellants and Sri V.Venkata Rami Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insuance Company.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

submits that the Tribunal did not

appreciate the career of the deceased, who was studying

Engineering and Technology final year and he is having bright

future in his life and he may get good salary of more than

Rs.50,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits

that the Tribunal should have awarded monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.30,000/- having held that there is negligence

on the part of driver of the truck lorry. He further submits

that since Ex.B.1-policy is in force as on the date of accident,

the Tribunal ought to have granted total compensation of

Rs.30,00,000/- as claimed by the appellants. Learned

counsel further submits that the Tribunal also did not award

any amount under the head of pain and suffering though the

appellants have incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for

treatment of the deceased and the Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, the learned

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to

negligence of driver of lorry, but without considering the

evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the

deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased's

income at Rs.10,000/- per month and also not awarded

compensation under the head of 'parental consortium and

'filial consortium' as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nanu

Ram alis Chuhru Ram 1. Learned counsel further submits

that Tribunal has granted very meagre compensation though

the appellants are entitled for more than the claim and hence,

he pray prays allow the appeal.

12. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2

submits that the Tribunal after considering the entire

evidence on record, has awarded compensation as per

entitlement of the appellants and that the assessment made

by the Tribunal cannot be found fault and therefore, there are

no grounds to enhance the same and hence, he prays to

dismiss the appeal.

2018 (18) SCC 130

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

13. Considering the submissions made by both the

counsel, the point that arises for the consideration in this

appeal is whether the appellants have made out any

ground for enhancement of compensation, as prayed for?

14. POINT:

It is not in dispute that no cross appeal is preferred by

the respondents challenging the award passed by the

Tribunal. As such it is deemed that the respondents have no

grievance with regard to the award passed by the Tribunal.

Respondent No.2 has not disputed the liability, involvement of

vehicle in the accident and the alleged negligence on the part

of driver of crime vehicle, it can be taken that there is no

objection for respondent No.2 in respect of the same. The

only objection raised by respondent No.2 is that the

appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation.

15. It is the case of the appellants that at the time of

accident the deceased was aged about 20 years and studying

B.Tech final year and he also received offer of appointment

from M/s. Micro Spark Solutions on 20.06.2016. The said

letter is marked as Ex.A.11. It is also not in dispute that

prior to the accident, the deceased used to earn an amount of

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

Rs.15,000/- per month. Ex.A.11 letter was received by the

deceased eight (8) days prior to the date of the accident. If the

said accident could not taken place, the deceased would have

joined in the said company and he will get monthly salary of

Rs.20,000/-. But, in paragraph No.7 of the impugned

Judgment, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not an

employee and he was studying B.Tech., final year as per the

evidence of P.W.1, as such Ex.A.11 was not useful to the

appellants as deceased was not doing any job and he is not

an earning member as on the date of the accident.

Considering the fact that the deceased being B.Tech student,

the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at

Rs.10,000/- per month.

16. In support of contentions of the appellants, the

appellants also relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court between Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto

@ Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & ORS 2, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court by considering the various judgments in the

case of Lata Wadhawa and others v. State of Bihar and

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5345 of 2019

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

others 3 and further relying on the judgment in the case of

Taff Vale Rly. V. Jankins 4 wherein considering the case of

Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others 5, the learned

Tribunal in the said cases has accepted the notional income

of Rs.30,000/- including future prospectus and applied '15'

multiplier considering the age of the petitioner therein who is

aged about 12 years.

17. But, in the present case, as the deceased was

more than 20 years as on the date of the accident and there

being an offer of appointment received by him to assess his

income of i.e., Rs.20,000/-, which clearly show that the said

offer of appointment was given by M/s. Micro Spark

Solutions.

18. Admittedly, the deceased is pursuing 3rd year II

semester as on the date of accident. This Court is of the

opinion that though the finding given by the Tribunal appears

to be correct, considering the age of the father and mother of

the deceased about 40 years and 38 years and they lost their

son who is at the age of 20 years obviously, the deceased

(2001)8 SCC 197

1913 AC 1

(2014) 1 SCC 244

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

would have been earned an amount of Rs.20,000/- even after

completion of B.Tech, which would be in the year 2018.

Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the

notional income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.15,000/-

per month .

19. It is now well settled that even for the self-

employed, future prospects are to be included in assessment

of the compensation. Considering the age of the deceased as

20 years, additional 40% of income has to be added towards

future prospectus to the monthly income of the deceased as

per the decision of Pranay Sethi' case. If added, the monthly

income of the deceased would be of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.15000

+6000) and the annual income of the deceased would come

to Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.21,000x 12). As per judgment of Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 6, 50% of the income

has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased as the deceased being bachelor and aged about 20

years. After deducting the same then the actual annual

income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,26,000/-

(Rs.2,52,000/- (-) Rs.1,26,000/-).

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

20. As per the column No.4 of table prescribed in the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's

case and considering the age of the deceased as 20 years, the

appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased age is '18'.

Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to

Rs.22,68,000/- (1,26,000/- x 18).

21. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to

Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards

funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (supra).

22. Further, considering the fact that appellant No.1

being the father and appellant No.2 being mother of the

deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/-each under the

head of 'loss of consortium' as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment

(supra).

23. Appellant Nos.3 and 4 being sister and brother of

the deceased, they are entitled for compensation to a sum of

Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) towards 'parental consortium', as

per Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram and

other 7 . Further, the appellants also spent an amount of

2018 (18) SCC 130

NNR,J Macma_303_2020

Rs.17,327/- towards treatment of the deceased. In proof of

the same, they filed Ex.A.12 -Medical bills, which show that

the deceased was admitted in the hospital at Malla Reddy

Narayana Multi Speciality Hospital. Taking into consideration

the same, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of

Rs.17,327/- towards medical expenses.

24. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings,

material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions, this Court is

of the opinion that the appellants are entitled for

enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated

as above and given in the table below for easy reference:

25. Considering the above assessment made by this

Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows:

i)     Annual Income (of the deceased)
       Rs.15,000/- X 12    =     Rs.1,80,000/-

ii)     Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
        Prospects (Annual Income + 40%) =
        Rs.1,80,000/- + Rs.72,000/-      =       Rs.2,52,000/-

iii) The deceased is below 20 years 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses Rs.2,52,000/- (-) Rs.1,26,000/- = Rs.1,26,000/-


iv)    Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied
                                                                    Rs.22,68,000.00

                                                                            NNR,J
                                                                    Macma_303_2020



     Multiplier = Rs.1,26,000/- x 18     =

v) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of consortium + loss of filial consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.2,29,900.00 Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.48,400 +48,400 + 48,400 = Medical Expenses Rs.17,327.00 Total Rs.25,15,227/-

26. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to

enhanced compensation of Rs.25,15,227/- as against the

awarded amount of Rs.15,42,000/- by the learned Tribunal.

27. Considering the circumstances of the case, the

learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at

7.5 % per annum and the same needs no interference by this

Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the

appellants/claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5 % on the

enhanced compensation.

28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part

enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,42,000/- to

Rs.25,15,227/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifteen Thousand