Telangana High Court
Korme,Kurme Mallavva And 4 Others vs Thipireddy Manohar Reddy And Another on 19 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.106 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded in the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2018 passed in
M.V.O.P. No.186 of 2014 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Adilabad-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for
short "the Tribunal"),the appellants/claimants preferred the
present appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, who are the
wife and children of late Kurma @ Golla Rajamallu (hereinafter
referred to as "the deceased") filed M.V.O.P.No.186 of 2014 before
the Tribunal, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per
annum for the loss sustained by them due to the untimely death of
the deceased in motor vehicle accident.It is stated that the
deceased was aged about 55 years and was hale and healthy and
was earning Rs.6,000/- by way doing agriculture field work. It is
further stated that on 17.05.2013 at about 8.30 a.m., while the
deceased was proceeding on the road near Eidgaon X-road of
Nirmal Town to go to his house, a motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-
AG-2358 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and high
speed by its rider i.e., respondent No.1 dashed the deceased from
opposite direction due to which, the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to injuries on 22.06.2013 while
undergoing treatment. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1
remained ex parte and respondent No.2 i.e., 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.2, and on evaluation of both oral and
documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the
O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.4,99,320/- along with an
interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till
the date of the realization payable by the respondents 1 and 2
jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal
has been filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
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 meager 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.2would submit that the compensation has been rightly granted
by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced.
7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle and that
respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the appellants has become final, as the same is
not challenged by the respondents.
8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, even
though the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month and the evidence shows that the deceased
was an able-bodied male engaged incoolie work, the Tribunal has
determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per
month. However, having regard to the evidence on record and the
prevailing rate for rural agricultural/coolie labour at the relevant
time, this Court is satisfied that a notional monthly income of
Rs.5,000/- is reasonable and proper to be adopted in place of the
2017 ACJ 2700
Rs.3000/- taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the notional annual
income of the deceased comes to Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5,000 x 12).
Further, the appellants are entitled to addition of 40% towards
future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Therefore, annual income of the
deceased comes to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.60,000 + 24,000). Since there
are five dependents (wife, two sons and two daughters), even by
following the approach of the Tribunal, if 1/5this deducted towards
personal living expenses of the deceased, his total annual
contribution to the family comes to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.84,000 -
Rs.16,800). Since the age of the deceased was 55 years at the time
of the accident, by adopting the appropriate multiplier of '11' as per
Column 4 of the Schedule prescribed in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another 2 , total loss of earnings
comes to Rs.7,39,200/- (Rs.67,200/- x 11).
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."
(2009) 6 SCC 121
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
compensationof Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for
transportation can be maintained. Thus, the appellants are entitled
for total compensation of Rs.8,24,200/- (Rs.7,39,200/- + 84,000/-
+ Rs.5,000/-).
10. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award
dated 14.02.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.186 of 2014 by the
Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from
Rs.4,99,320/-to Rs.8,24,200/-. 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: 19.11.2025
SCS
