Telangana High Court
The Managing Director, Telangana State ... vs Arrolla Gopal on 20 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.267 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-corporation
challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2018 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Judge, Medak at
Sangareddy (for short "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P. No. 355 of 2015,
whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.11,75,000/-
together with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum to
the claimants (respondents herein) on account of death of the
deceased Arrolla Akshaya Kumar in a road accident which occurred
on 04.08.2013.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.08.2013 the son of the
appellant, one late Arrolla Akshaya Kumar (aged about 19 years)was
travelling as a pillion rider on a Motorbike/Yamaha FZ bearing
registration No.AP-23-T/R-7334 along with two friends and when they
reached near Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Madinaguda, the motorcycle
collided with an R.T.C. bus bearing No. A.P.23-Z-0078 as a result of
which the deceased sustained grievous head injury and succumbed
while being shifted to hospital. A crime was also registered at Miyapur
Police Station as Cr.No.445 of 2013 under Sections 304A and 337
IPC, against the driver of the RTC bus. The appellant, on behalf of the
family, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of his son.
3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, recorded finding to the effect that though the FIR alleged
rash and negligent driving by the bus driver, the scene and inquest
panchanama suggested that the rider of the motorcycle attempted to
overtake the bus, lost control, and fell under the back tyre of the bus.
The Tribunal ultimately held that both the rider of the motorcycle and
the driver of the bus were negligent and apportioned liability 50:50
and awarded compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- together with
proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimants
(respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein) on account of death of the deceased
Arrolla Akshaya Kumar, as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-
corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in finding
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and in holding the
owner-corporation vicariously liable; the Tribunal wrongly assessed
contributory negligence and ought to have fixed 100% negligence on
the part of the rider of the motorcycle; the Tribunal erred in taking
notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- pm and applying
multiplier 18; the various heads of compensation (in particular
amounts awarded for loss of love and affection and mental agony and
trauma) are excessive; and as such, the impugned judgment passed
by the Tribunal requires interference by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 4-claimants, contended that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this
Court.
6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
7. A careful examination of the record discloses that the
documentary evidence, in the form of FIR, scene of offence
panchanama and inquest panchanama, clearly establishes
involvement of the RTC bus in the accident. While the panchanama
indicates that the motorcycle rider attempted to overtake and lost
control, the presence of the bus and the nature of impact justify the
Tribunal's view that the bus driver also failed to exercise due caution.
Therefore, this Court finds that assessment of contributory negligence
is based on the material on record and is not arbitrary.
8. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, the
Tribunal adopted notional monthlyincome of Rs.10,000/- for a 19 year
old student. This is neither excessive nor contrary to settled principles
governing assessment of income for young, non-earning victims. The
multiplier 18, the 50% deduction towards personal expenses and the
conventional heads of compensation are all consistent with the
principles enunciated in the cases of Smt.Sarla Varma vs Delhi
Transport Corporation 1and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay
Sethi 2. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
impugned award cannot be said to be excessive.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any
illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment, so as to
warrant interference in this appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is
dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date:20.11.2025
JSU/SCS
2009(6) SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
