[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Gadapa Srihari And 2 Ors vs K.Venkateshwar And Anr on 1 December, 2025

       IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD
           THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
                       MACMA.No.3795 of 2008
                    DATED: 1st DECEMBER, 2025


Between:
1.Gadapa Srihari
2.Gadapa Vijaya
3.Gadapa Kavitha
                                     ... Appellants/Claimants
                               And
1.K.Venkateshwar
2.The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., represented by
 its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Opp.Z.P Office,
 Subashnagar, Nizamabad.
                                     ... Respondents/Respondents
                                 2/7
                                                              BRMR, J
                                                  MACMA.No.3795 of 2008




          THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                       MACMA.No.3795 of 2008


JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') assailing the award passed by the I

Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for short

'the Tribunal'), in O.P.No.2075 of 2001 dated 01.07.2005.

2. Appellants herein are the petitioners and respondents herein

are the respondents before the Tribunal.

3.1 Appellants - petitioners have filed a petition under Section

166(1)(c) of the MV Act r/w Rule 455 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles

Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the death of Gadapa

Shashikanth.

3.2 It is stated in the petition that on 12.12.2001 Gadapa

Shashikanth was travelling on a Suzuki motor cycle bearing No.AP-

25-F-8208 as pillion rider and another person by name Rachakatla

Santhosh was driving the said motor cycle. When they reached

Excise Office, Kanteshwar at about 07.15 a.m., lorry bearing

No.ATK-9477 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner

came from behind and dashed against the motor cycle due to

BRMR, J

which G.Shashikanth, motor cycle and R.Santosh fell down.

G.Shashikanth sustained fractures and crush injuries, he was

shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and he died on the

same day while undergoing treatment. The deceased was aged

about 22 years, he was a student, doing fish business and was

earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.ATK 9477

and prayed to award the compensation.

4.1 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

4.2 Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in

which the accident has occurred. It is further contended that the

driver of the lorry bearing No.ATK 9477 do not possess valid

driving license as on the date of accident and the compensation

claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident occurred on 12-12-2001 at 7-15 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.ATK 9477 driven by its driver?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

6. Appellant No.2 - petitioner No.2 is examined as PW1, also

examined PW2 - Santosh and PW3 - M.Ramaswamy and marked

BRMR, J

Exs.A1 to A7. Respondent No.2 did not examine any witness and

got marked Ex.B1 - copy of Insurance Policy.

7. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced

by the parties has awarded an amount of Rs.1,58,000/- together

with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

filing the original petition till the date of deposit, directing the

respondent No.2 to pay the awarded amount and that appellants -

petitioners are entitled for 1/3rd share each as legal representatives

of the deceased G.Shashikanth.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal

ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per

month but wrongly came to a conclusion that the deceased

G.Shashikanth is shown as a student and treated him as a non-

earning member and fixed the income of the deceased at

Rs.15,000/- per annum and also erred in deducting 1/3rd towards

expenses. Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.6,00,000/-

instead of Rs.1,58,000/- and interest should have been granted at

the rate of 12% per annum instead of 9% per annum and prayed to

enhance the compensation.

9.1 Notice issued to respondent No.1 is served on 08.12.2008

but he failed to appear.

BRMR, J

9.2 Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the

learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and no

interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material.

11. Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether the appellants/petitioners have made out any case for enhancement of compensation, if so?

ii) Whether the award passed by learned Tribunal in OP.No.2075 of 2001 dated 01.07.2005 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court?

POINT NOs.1 AND 2:

12. Appeal is filed in respect of the quantum of amount awarded.

13. The learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the deceased

G.Shashikanth is shown as a student, treated him as a non-

earning member and fixed an amount of Rs.15,000/- per annum

notionally based on second schedule to Section 163-A of the MV

Act. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, the age of appellant

No.2 - petitioner No.2 is taken as 40 years and applied the

multiplier of '15.5' on average and arrived at a compensation of

Rs.2,32,500/- and deducted 1/3rd towards expenses i.e.,

Rs.77,500/- and the loss of dependency and other expenses are

shown as under:

BRMR, J

1. Loss of Dependency : Rs.1,55,000-00

2. Transport Expenses : Rs. 500-00

3. Funeral Expenses : Rs. 2,500-00 Total compensation : Rs.1,58,000-00

14. PW1 deposed that the deceased G.Shashikanth after

completing the education was doing fish business as he was not

having any job and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Ex.A5 is

the memorandum of marks of B.Com III year of Osmania

University dated 17.06.2000, which shows the deceased

G.Shashikanth is a B.Com graduate. Ex.A6 is the certificate course

in Information Technology of the deceased. The learned Tribunal

erred in coming to a conclusion that the deceased G.Shashikanth

is shown as a student and fixed the notional income at

Rs.15,000/- per annum.

15. By the date of the accident i.e., 12.12.2001 the deceased has

already completed his B.Com and as per the evidence of PW1 he

was doing fish business, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the

income of the deceased be taken at Rs.4,000/- per month, which

will meet the ends of justice. Further, as per Ex.A2 - post mortem

examination report, the deceased was aged about 22 years as on

the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per

BRMR, J

the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation 1.

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

        Sl.No.           Name of the Head               Compensation
                                                       awarded by this
                                                            Court
        1.         Income                           Rs.4,000/- per month
        2.         Deduct      50%          towards Rs.2,000/-
                   personal expenses                (4,000 x 50%)
                   (as per Sarla varma)
        3.         Annual income                    Rs.24,000/-
                                                    (2,000 x 12)
        3.         Multiplier '18'                  Rs.4,32,000/-
                                                    (24,000 x 18)
        4.         Pain and suffering               Rs.1,00,000/-


        5.         Loss of love and affection       Rs.1,00,000/-
        6.         Loss of estate                   Rs.15,000/-
        7.         Funeral expenses                 Rs.15,000/-
                   Total compensation               Rs.6,62,000/-
                                                    Rounded     off         to
                                                    Rs.6,60,000/-

17. In the result, MACMA.No.3795 of 2008 is allowed and the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:

a) The impugned award dated 01.07.2005, passed in

O.P.No.2075 of 2001, stands modified.

b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,

Rs.1,58,000/- is enhanced to Rs.6,60,000/- together

(2009) 6 SCC 121

BRMR, J

with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the

date of filing the petition till payment.

c) The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the

awarded amount jointly and severally 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.