Telangana High Court
M Anajaneyulu vs Govardhan on 18 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.246 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded in the order and decree, dated 27.12.2018 passed in
O.P.No.209 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal -cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for
short "the Tribunal"), the present appeal has been filed by the
appellants/claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, who are the
parents of one late Master M.Aravaind (hereinafter referred to as
"the deceased") filed O.P.No.209 of 2017 under Section 166 (1) (c)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor
vehicle accident that took place on 11.12.2016. It is stated that on
that day, the deceased was riding on a tractor bearing registration
No. AP-28 DQ 2131, driven by Respondent No.1, to the agricultural
fields of his grandfather Linganna in Mitta Nandimalla Village of
Narva Mandal for the purpose of ploughing the land and while the
tractor was passing through the agricultural land of one Basi
Reddy nearby the land of Linganna, respondent No.1 drove the
tractor in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased,
who was sitting on the mudguard by the side of the driver, fell
2 CVBR, J
MACMA_246_2019
down and the left tyre of the tractor ran over the deceased, which
resulted in his death. It is also stated that prior to the accident,
the deceased, aged 14 years, was earning Rs.100/- per day by
distributing milk packets in the morning hours from door to door
in Bekkarpally village. On account of the death of the deceased,
the appellants, who are his parents, lost their source of income.
Respondents Nos.1 and 2 being the driver and the owner and
respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation. Before the Tribunal,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte and respondent No.3
i.e., the Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of
the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is
excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
3. Considering the claim of the appellants and the counter filed
by respondent No.3, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral
and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P.
and awarded compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Seventy Thousand Only) to the appellants-claimants along with an
interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till
the date of the realization payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly
and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been
filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation.
3 CVBR, J
MACMA_246_2019
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that
compensation granted by the Tribunal is meagre and prayed to
enhance the same. It is further submitted that 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 the future prospects and also Rs.84,000/-
(Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under
conventional heads.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent
No.3 would submit that the compensation towards non-pecuniary
damages has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same
need not be enhanced.
7. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in
which the accident took place has become final as the same is not
challenged by the respondents.
8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
though the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning
Rs.100/- per day by distributing milk packets, since there wasno
2017 ACJ 2700
4 CVBR, J
MACMA_246_2019
satisfactory documentary proof, the Tribunal had rightly estimated
the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum.
However, the appellants are entitled to addition of 40% towards
future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, annual income of the
deceased comes to Rs.21,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6,000/-). Since
the age of the deceased was 14 years at the time of the accident,
the appropriate multiplier is '15' as per Column 4 of the Schedule
prescribed in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another 2. Adopting multiplier '15', his total loss of earnings would
be Rs.19,000/- x 15 = Rs.2,85,000/-.
9. As regards compensation under conventional heads is
concerned, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court inPranay 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. The
(2009) 6 SCC 121
5 CVBR, J
MACMA_246_2019
amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of
love and affections can be maintained. Thus, the appellants are
entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,94,000/-(Rs.2,85,000/- +
84,000/- + Rs.25,000/-).
10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the award
dated 27.12.2018 passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.209 of 2017 is
modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,70,000/- to
Rs.3,94,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. The rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the
Tribunal shall remain unaltered. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date:18.11.2025
JSU/SCS
