Telangana High Court
G.Nagamani And 3 Others vs Mahammad Younus Varala Syed And Another on 25 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
MACMA No.112 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, is directed against the order and decree
dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") in O.P.No.2913 of 2016. The
appellants herein i.e., legal heirs of the deceased-Ediga Anil Kumar
Goud seek enhancement of the compensation awarded for the death
of deceased in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.09.2016, the deceased
was proceeding from Vavilala village to Leeja village on his motor
cycle bearing No.AP 22 AG 3809 to bring groceries and when he
reached Padipuram bus stand, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-21-
TT-8650, driven by respondent No.1 dashed to the motorcycle in a
rash and negligent manner, leading to his instantaneous death.
Stating that at the time of his death, the deceased had studied M.A.,
B.Ed., and PGDCA and was working as private teacher and running
Xerox-cum-Internet center and used to earn more than Rs.20,000/-
per month and that the deceased was the only earning member of the
family consisting of the appellants and they were totally dependent
upon the earnings of the deceased for their livelihood, the appellants-
claimants i.e., his wife, minor son, mother, and grandfather filed the
aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner-cum-driver of
the lorry remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-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. The Tribunal, after considering the oral
and documentary evidence, held that the deceased died in the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.12,12,400/- in favour of
the appellants-claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would submit
that even though appellants-claimants pleaded the income of the
deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal has not only
underestimated the income of the deceased, ignoring his educational
qualifications and earning potential, but also failed to take note of the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik
Shaikh Rafique v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd 1.,
wherein it was held that the income of an unskilled worker for the
year 2004 shall be Rs.4,500/- per month with an increment of
2025 INSC 673
Rs.500/- per month for each successive year. Learned counsel would
further submit that taking the accident year herein as 2016, the
income of the deceased ought to have been fixed at Rs.10,500/- per
month and ultimately, prayed to enhance the compensation.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company supported the impugned award of the Tribunal
and contended that the claim of Rs.20,000/- per month was not
supported by any documentary evidence and therefore the Tribunal
rightly adopted notional income. It is further contended that the
compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does not warrant
interference.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and
perused the material on record. The deceased was 29 years old at the
time of the accident. The Tribunal adopted a notional monthly income
of Rs.6,000/-, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique's case
(supra). As per the said decision, the income of Rs.4,500/- fixed for
the year 2004 is required to be increased by Rs.500/- per month for
every subsequent year. Applying the said formula for the accident
year 2016, the income of the deceased ought to have been fixed at
Rs.10,500/- per month.
7. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 , even self-
employed persons are entitled to addition towards future prospects.
Since the deceased was 29 years of age, 40% has to be added towards
future prospects. Thus, the monthly income would come to
Rs.14,700/- (Rs.10,500/- + Rs.4,200/-). There are four dependants
and therefore 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses. The monthly contribution would thus be Rs.11,025/-
(Rs.14,700/- - Rs.3,675/-) and the annual contribution comes to
Rs.1,32,300/- (Rs.11,025/- X 12). The Tribunal rightly adopted the
appropriate multiplier of '17' for the age group of the deceased, as
held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3. Applying the
said multiplier, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.22,49,100/-
(Rs.1,32,300 X 17). In addition to the above, as per the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the
appellants are also entitled to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10%
enhancement for every three years) under conventional heads. Thus,
the total compensation amount comes to Rs.23,33,100/-
(Rs.22,49,100/- + Rs.84,000/-) which is rounded off to
Rs.23,33,000/-
2017 ACJ 2700
(2009) 6 SCC 121
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.12,12,400/- to Rs.23,33,000/-. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of deposit. 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: 25.11.2025
JSU
