Telangana High Court
Jetti Jyothi vs Ranjan N.K., on 27 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.638 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
is filed by the appellants-claimants, challenging the judgment and
decree dated 24-01-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.250 of 2016 by the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional
District Judge, Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.9,88,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the
appellants-claimants i.e., wife and children and respondent No.4 i.e.,
mother, as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the
deceased in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-04-2016, the
deceased was travelling as a pillion rider, along with his friend by
name M.Srikanth, on Hero Honda Activa bearing No.AP-13-AG-2507
from Ramdevguda to Golkonda fort and when they reached near
Ashurkana, Golkonda fort, a tourist vehicle bearing No.KL-39H-5958
driven in high speed in rash and negligent manner, hit the motor
cycle due to which, the deceased sustained head injury and died on
the spot. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital,
Hyderabad for post mortem. A criminal was registered vide Crime
No.120 of 2016 against respondent No.2 i.e., driver of the crime
vehicle under Section 304-A IPC. Stating that the deceased was hale
and healthy and working as cable technician at Umar
communications, Ramdevguda, Golkonda, Hyderabad and earning
an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to
his family and that due to untimely death, the appellants lost their
bread winner, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal,
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner of crime
vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., driver and
insurer of crime vehicle filed counters denying the averments of the
claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent
No.4 i.e., mother of the deceased, also filed counter stating that
accident took place due to negligent driving of respondent No.2;
respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation; and an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- is required to be
awarded to her towards compensation as the deceased was sending
her Rs. Rs.5000/- per month.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2
i.e., the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of
Rs.9,88,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till realization. Challenging the same, the appellants-
claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that
compensation granted by the Tribunal is meager and 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 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 appearing for
respondent No.3-insurance company would submit that the
compensation has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same
need not be enhanced.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.2 i.e., the driver of the crime vehicle and respondent
1 2017 ACJ 2700
Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
appellants-claimants and respondent No.4.
8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, even
accepting the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.6,000/- per month, the compensation awarded is grossly
deficient, as the Tribunal failed to add 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.1,00,800/- (Rs.72,000 + 28,800). If 1/4th is deducted towards
personal living expenses of the deceased, his total annual
contribution to the family comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.1,00,800 -
Rs.25,200). By applying the multiplier '17', as adopted by the
Tribunal, total loss of earnings comes to Rs.12,85,200/-
(Rs.75,600/- x 17). As regards compensation under conventional
heads is concerned, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Pranay 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. Thus, the appellants
are entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,69,200/-
(Rs.12,85,200/- + 84,000/-).
9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.9,88,000/- to Rs.13,69,200/- with 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: 27.11.2025
JSU
