[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Jittabina Ramu vs Gondi Parameshwar Reddy on 8 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.738 of 2019
DATE: 08.04.2026
Between:
Jittaboina Ramu
.....Appellant
AND
Gondi Parameshwar Reddy and another
....Respondents
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant, under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the order and
decree dated 29.03.2014 passed in O.P.No.9 of 2008 by the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional
District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, wherein the Tribunal awarded
a compensation of Rs.73,200/- with interest at 6% per annum, while
attributing contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the part of
the injured claimant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein, who
was a minor aged about 9 years at the time of accident, met with a
road accident on 30.09.2006 at about 9:30 a.m. while he was
crossing the road at Raingudem Village. At that time, an A.P.S.R.T.C.
bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-4490, driven in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against the minor boy, resulting in grievous injuries.
He was initially treated at Area Hospital, Suryapet, and thereafter at
Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. A criminal case in Crime
No.107 of 2006 was registered against the driver of the bus. The
appellant/claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Before the
Tribunal, the mother of the claimant was examined as PW-1, an
eyewitness was examined as PW-2, and the doctor was examined as
PW-3. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. The respondents, though
contested the matter by filing a counter, did not choose to adduce
any oral or documentary evidence. Upon appreciation of the entire
material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus as
well as the minor claimant and attributed contributory negligence at
50% on the part of the claimant. The Tribunal assessed the total
compensation at Rs.1,46,400/- and after deducting 50%, awarded
Rs.73,200/- with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same,
the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.
4. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal on contributory
negligence is concerned, having regard to the age of the claimant,
who was a minor aged about 9 years at the time of accident, and in
the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondents,
this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was not
justified in attributing contributory negligence to the claimant.
Accordingly, the said finding is set aside and it is held that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus.
5. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has
awarded amounts under various heads such as injuries, medical
expenses, disability and other incidental expenses. The Tribunal, on
the basis of the evidence of PW-3 (doctor) and Ex.A-6 disability
certificate, has taken the permanent disability at 30% and applied an
appropriate multiplier considering the age of the claimant. It has also
awarded reasonable amounts towards injuries, treatment and other
heads.
6. On a careful re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds
that the compensation determined by the Tribunal under various
heads is just, reasonable and based on proper appreciation of the
evidence on record. The Tribunal has adopted a reasonable notional
income, applied the correct multiplier and assessed the disability in
accordance with the medical evidence. The amounts awarded towards
injuries and treatment also appear to be just and reasonable.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the total compensation of
Rs.1,46,400/- as computed by the Tribunal does not warrant any
interference. However, since this Court has set aside the finding of
contributory negligence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to the
entire compensation of Rs.1,46,400/- without any deduction.
7. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel contended that the
appellant-claimant had sought only Rs.1,25,000/- and therefore
compensation cannot exceed the amount claimed. However, in view of
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman @ Laxman
Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and another 1 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 2, and
considering that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
intended to ensure just and fair compensation, the Courts are
empowered to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed.
Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled to the higher compensation.
8. Coming to the rate of Interest, the Hon'ble Supreme court in
the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mannat Johal
and others 3 and in several subsequent decisions held that the
(2011) 10 SCC 756
2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
3 AIR 2019 SC 2079
reasonable rate of interest to be awarded in motor accident claim
cases shall be 7.5% per annum. Therefore, the rate of interest
awarded by the Tribunal at 6% per annum is on the lower side and
requires enhancement.
9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The finding of the
Tribunal attributing contributory negligence to the appellant/
claimant is set aside and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is enhanced from Rs.73,200/- to Rs.1,46,400/- with interest at 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till realization. The appellant/
claimant is directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced
amount. The remaining terms and conditions of the Tribunal shall
stand unaltered. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 08.04.2026
JSU
