Fareeda Begum vs Mohd. Feroz Pasha
2025 Latest Caselaw 6823 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6823 Tel
Judgement Date : 1 December, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Fareeda Begum vs Mohd. Feroz Pasha on 1 December, 2025

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                       M.A.C.M.A.No.434 of 2019


                           DATE: 01.12.2025


Between:

Fareeda Begum and four others

                                                        .....Appellants
                                  AND

Mohd. Ferz Pasha and two others

                                                       ....Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

is filed by the appellants-claimants, challenging the order and decree

dated 09-01-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2213 of 2016 by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"),

whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

Rs.11,00,600/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of

the appellants-claimants i.e., wife, children and parents, as against

the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor

vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.2016 at about

9:00 p.m., the deceased, Shaik Waseem Akram (aged 27 years), was

driving his auto (TATA-Ace) bearing registration No.AP-29- CB-4019,

from Hyderabad towards Kallakal Village of Toopran Mandal and

when they reached the village limits of Kallakal on National Highway

No.44, a goods-carriage van (DCM) bearing registration No. AP-10-W-

1976, being driven by its driver suddenly turned right to take a U-

turn in front of Janatha Hotel, without giving any signal or taking

caution, and collided with the auto. As a result of the collision, the

deceased lost control of his auto and sustained fatal injuries.

Immediately the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for

treatment but succumbed to injuries the same night. The police

registered a case vide Crime No.178 of 2016 at Toopran Police

Station under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the DCM van.

Stating that prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy

earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, the appellants-claimants

i.e., wife, two minor children (son and daughter), and parents of the

deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal,

seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of

the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 i.e., owner and

driver of crime vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-

insruance company filed a counter denying the averments of the

claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM

van and awarded compensation of Rs.11,00,600/- with interest at

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

the same, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that

compensation granted by the Tribunal is meager and as per the

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, the

appellants are also entitled to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10%

enhancement for every three years) under conventional heads.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondent No.2-insurance company would submit that the

compensation has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same

need not be enhanced.

1 2017 ACJ 2700

7. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

respondent No.3 i.e., the driver of the crime vehicle and respondent

Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to

the appellants-claimants.

8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the

Tribunal, while accepting the age of the deceased (27 years), fixed

income at Rs.4,500/- per month in absence of documentary proof,

and after considering 40% addition for future prospects and

deducting one-fourth for personal living expenses, rightly awarded

loss of dependency of Rs.10,20,600/-. As regards compensation

under conventional heads is concerned, it is apt to refer to the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra),

wherein it was held as follows:-

"Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."

Taking into consideration the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.84,000/-

under the conventional heads to the appellants. Further, the amount

granted by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love are enhanced to Rs.20,000/- each.

Thus, the appellants are entitled for total compensation of

(Rs.10,20,600/-. + Rs.84,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.20,000/-)

Rs.11,44,600/-, rounding off to Rs.11,45,000/-.

9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned

award passed by the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.11,00,600/- to Rs.11,45,000/-. The enhanced

compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date