Telangana High Court
Pawar Kalavathi And 2 Others vs P. Sridevi And Another on 25 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.748 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the
award dated 11.08.2014 passed in O.P.No.413 of 2011 by the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge,
Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal awarded a
total compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- after deducting 50% on the
ground of contributory negligence.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the claimants is that on 02.01.2011, at about 9:00
PM, the deceased Pavar Bhim Rao @ Bheemudu was travelling on a
motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 Q 6676 as a pillion rider, driven by one
Guguloth Ravi from Munipally Thanda towards Sampathly Village and
when they reached the outskirts of Nakka Thanda, a Combine
Harvester bearing No. AP 15 AC 9785 was found negligently parked in
the centre of the road without any indicators or warning signs, due to
which the motorcycle collided with the harvester, resulting in
instantaneous death of both persons. Claiming compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- the claimants filed the aforesaid O.P against the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2
filed counter affidavit and contended that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motorcycle and
ultimately prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, held that the harvester was parked negligently in the middle
of the road, but attributed 50% contributory negligence to the
deceased and the motorcycle rider. It assessed total compensation at
Rs.8,40,000/-, but awarded only Rs.4,20,000/-.
6. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the
record.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
finding of contributory negligence is wholly unsustainable in view of
the clear evidence of PW2, Ex.A.1-First Information Report (FIR),
Ex.A.2-charge sheet, and Ex.A.6-rough sketch, all showing that the
accident occurred solely due to the illegal parking of the harvester. It
is submitted that the insurer produced no evidence to prove
contributory negligence. It is further submitted that though the age of
the deceased was 32 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier '15',
whereas the correct multiplier as per the decision in Smt.Sarla
Varma vs Delhi Transport Corporation 1 is '16'.
2009(6) SCC 121
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance
Company supported the impugned award and submitted that the
Tribunal rightly considered the contributory negligence. It is
submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
and others 2 , the claimants are entitled to only Rs.84,000/- under
conventional heads but the Tribunal erroneously awarded
Rs.2,25,000/- and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.
9. As seen from the material placed on record, Ex.A1-FIR and
Ex.A2-charge sheet clearly establish that the harvester was negligently
parked in the middle of the road without any indicators or
precautionary measures. PW2, an eyewitness, supported the same.
Ex.A6-rough sketch also depicts that the harvester stationed across
the road. The insurer did not produce any evidence to rebut these
findings. The Tribunal's assumption of equal negligence is not
supported by any material. Therefore, the finding of contributory
negligence is set aside.
10. With regard to the multiplier, the Tribunal recorded the age of
the deceased as 32 years based on Exs.A.2 and A3 (inquest report) as
well as the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. It is the contention of the
claimants that the appropriate multiplier for the age of 32 years is '16'
as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), but the Tribunal erroneously
2017 ACJ 2700
adopted multiplier '15'. Once the age of the deceased is established
and falls within the statutory multiplier bracket prescribed in Sarla
Verma's case (supra), the Tribunal is bound to apply the
corresponding multiplier and cannot adopt any different multiplier
contrary to the settled principles. The Tribunal took the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- based on the evidence of PW1
and PW2. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses for
three dependents, the annual contribution works out to Rs.48,000/-.
Applying the multiplier '16', the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.7,68,000/-.
11. As regards compensation under conventional heads is
concerned, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others 3, 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."
Keeping in view the above principles, this Court is inclined to modify
the compensation awarded under the conventional heads and grant
an amount of Rs.84,000/- (Rs.70,000/- plus 10% enhancement for
every three years) to the claimants. The amount of Rs.15,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation is maintained. Thus,
2017 ACJ 2700
the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,67,000/-
(Rs.7,68,000/- + Rs.84,000/- + Rs.15,000/-).
12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated
11.08.2014 passed in O.P.No.413 of 2011 by the Tribunal is modified
by setting aside the finding of contributory negligence and the
compensation is enhanced from Rs.4,20,000/- to Rs.8,67,000/- with
interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till
realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally
within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
On deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as
per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 25.11.2025
SCS
