Allanki Umadevi vs M/S. Cmr Education Society
2025 Latest Caselaw 3292 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3292 Tel
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

Allanki Umadevi vs M/S. Cmr Education Society on 21 March, 2025

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.530 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 12.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.1720 of 2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on

08.03.2016 at about 7:30 a.m., the deceased-A.Mounika was going

as a pillion rider on Vespa bearing No.TS-07-EU-1631 driven by

her sister and while they were proceeding from Jagadirgutta

towards Kukatpally, when they reached in front of Reliance Fresh,

Vivekanandanagar, Hyderabad, one Ashok Leyland Bus bearing

No.AP-23-V-7333 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner at a high speed, dashed the Vespa, due to which the

deceased and her sister fell down and the deceased-Mounika

received bleeding injuries and was immediately shifted to Remedy

Hospital, where Mounika was declared dead. It is their case that

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the bus

driver and thus claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.530_2021

4. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the

Insurer, while respondent No.3 is the driver of the bus. Respondent

No.1 who is the owner has filed counter denying the negligence of

the driver and has contended that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the rider of the Scooter.

5. The respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the petition

averments and also denied the liability stating that the bus driver

did not possess a valid driving license. It is further contended that

the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the

Scooter and that there was no negligence of the bus driver.

6. The respondent No.3 remained ex-parte.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the deceased Allanki Mounika died on

08.03.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ashok Leyland Bus bearing No.AP- 23-V-7333?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

8. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PW1 and 2

and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no

oral evidence was adduced and got marked Ex.B1.

ETD,J MACMA No.530_2021

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.6,14,000/- as against the claim of

Rs.8,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

10. Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for

the claimants and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that

the Tribunal has awarded a very meagre compensation than what

is contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the

Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased as

Rs.48,000/- per annum, and that it failed to consider the Apex

Court Judgment, wherein the income of the 10th Class student has

been considered at Rs.10,000/- per month. He further contended

that the deceased was studying in one of the reputed colleges and

thus, she could have earned more than Rs. 25,000 per month and

therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation to Rs.8,00,000/- .

12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has

argued that with regard to the minors death, the guidelines laid

down by the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala 1 have to be

(2014) 1 SCC 244 ETD,J MACMA No.530_2021

considered and that in fact the Tribunal has granted more

compensation.

13. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement

of compensation as prayed for?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need

any interference?

3. To what relief?

14. Point No.1:

a) The claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation. It is their case that the deceased used to study in a

reputed college, as such she could have earned Rs.25,000/- per

month within a span of time and that she deceased was aged about

'15' years at the time of accident and therefore, the income has to

be taken at Rs.25,000/- per month.

b) A perusal of ExA4/Post Mortem Examination reveals the age

of the deceased as '15' years, so also the Marks Memo filed by the

claimants under Ex.A7 issued by the Board of Secondary

Education reveals the Date of Birth of the deceased as 31.08.2001.

The date of accident is 08.03.2016, so, the age of the deceased as ETD,J MACMA No.530_2021

per Ex.A7 is also '15' years. Thus, the deceased is a minor and the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal (supra 1)

holds good. Wherein an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was granted

towards compensation in the case of a minors death.

c) Learned counsel for the claimants contention is that the

Marks Memo filed under Ex.A8 with regard to the Intermediate and

the Conduct Certificate under Ex.A9 prove the potential of the

deceased that she could have earned Rs.25,000/- per month. A

perusal of Ex.A8 reveals that the deceased failed in Intermediate.

Out of all the subjects, she has passed only in the Language and

has failed in all the Optional Subjects in the year 2017. The Ex.A9

is the Study and Conduct Certificate dated 29.06.2018 showing

that she is a student of intermediate in Sri Chaitanya College. The

said exhibits do not aid the claimants to prove their contention

that the deceased could have earned Rs.25,000/- per month.

However, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion with

regard to her future earnings based on the said exhibits. It is only

proved that that the deceased was a student of Intermediate,

considering the said exhibits, the trial Court has awarded

Rs.6,14,000/- towards compensation. Therefore, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.530_2021

d) Though the deceased is a minor, the Tribunal has assessed

the income as Rs.4,000/- per month and has calculated the

compensation as Rs.6,14,000/-. Therefore, it is held that the

claimants are not entitled to further enhancement of

compensation.

Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.2:

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that

order and decree of the Tribunal does not need any interference

and the same is upheld.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

16. Point No.3:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 12.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.1720 of 2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs.