[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
K.Santhalakshmi And 5 Others vs P.Lakshmana Rao And Another on 10 April, 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
MACMA.No.2380 of 2014
DATED: 10th April 2026
Between:
1.K.Santhanalakshmi and 5 others
... Appellants - Petitioners
And
1.P.Lakshmana Rao and another
... Respondents-Respondents
JUDGMENT
1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') assailing
the award passed by learned VII Additional Metropolitan Session Judge -
cum - XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No.1087 of 2006
dated 16.10.2008.
2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the
respondents in O.P.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No.1
remained ex parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party
to the Appeal.
BRMR,J
4. Appellants - petitioners have filed claim petition under Sections
140 (C), 163-A and 166 of the MV Act read with Rules 475/1B of APMV
Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest
at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till
realization on the death of Late K.Babu Rao against respondent Nos.1
and 2 jointly and severally.
5. Respondent No.2 has filed its counter and denied the manner in
which the accident has taken place. Further it is contented that the
deceased himself was proceeding in a rash and negligent manner on the
wrong side of the road without following traffic rules and dashed the
lorry which is coming in opposite direction.
6. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 - A.Narasimha
Rao, PW3 - K.Anil Kumar, PW4 - A.Jagan and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.
Administrative Officer of respondent No.2 is examined as RW1 and got
marked Exs.B1 to B3.
7. The learned Tribunal, after going through the evidence adduced by
the parties with that of the documents marked thereon, has fixed 50%
contributory negligence on the deceased as he went completely on the
wrong side of the road and hit the lorry, awarded an amount of
Rs.4,72,500/- against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with
BRMR,J
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition
till the date of realization.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants - petitioners submits that the
learned Tribunal erred in not considering the case of the parties in right
perspective and wrongly fixed contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased as well as on the offending lorry driver without any evidence on
record, erred in taking the net salary of the deceased as contribution to
the family which ought to have taken the salary after standard
deductions of professional tax only, wrongly applied the multiplier '11'
and proper multiplier would be '15' and also awarded less amount under
loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Future prospects
are not awarded by the Tribunal. Counsel to substantiate his contention
has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Jumani Begam Vs. Ram
Narayan and others 1 (ii) Ranjeet and another Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and
another 2 (iii) Karri Nagapadma Sridevi and another Vs. Oriental Fire and
General Insurance Company Limited, Kakinada and others 3.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned
Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case, rightly fixed 50%
1 2020 (1) ALD 113 (SC)
2 Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No.10351 of 2019 dated 25.02.2025 of the Supreme Court of India
3 2001 (6) ALD 844 [DB]
BRMR,J
towards contributory negligence on the deceased, rightly awarded just
compensation and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Now the points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the appellants-petitioners were awarded just
compensation, if so?
(ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers
from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require any
interference of this Court?
11. The learned Tribunal while discussing about the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle has considered the
evidence of PW3 and PW4 who happens to be the eyewitnesses to the
incident. PW3 in his cross-examination stated that the deceased has
over took him and was going ahead, lorry came in opposite direction and
both the vehicles hit each other. Whereas PW4 deposed that accident
has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime
vehicle.
12. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of charge sheet, the relevant paragraph
reads as under:
"The investigation further revealed that on 22-05-2005 at about 13.15
hours while the deceased K.Babu Rao proceeding towards Hayathnagar
from Word & Deed School, Hayathnagar from the edge of the road in a
BRMR,J
wrong way, as there is no way to cross the road to take his direction, on the
way when he reached near Radio Station Hayathnagar, in the mean time
the accused Tripuraneni Venkateswara Rao, who is the driver of lorry
(trailer) bearing No: AP-16/X-5346 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner while proceeding towards Vijayawada from Hyderabad and dashed
against the motor cycle of deceased. As a result he sustained severe
bleeding injuries all over the body and cut out of his left leg under the knee
and he died while shifting him to Kamineni Hospital."
13. The evidence of RW1 is that it is the deceased who was negligent
and was on wrong side due to which accident has taken place. In his
cross-examination he stated that the police has charge sheeted the
driver of the crime vehicle.
14. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the rough sketch which goes to show
that deceased was on the wrong side and depicts the manner in which
the accident has occurred.
15.1 In Jumani Begam1, Supreme Court observed that truck trailer was
parked on the road at night without any reflectors.
15.2 In Ranjeet2, Supreme Court observed that once a charge sheet has
been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is
required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus
driver, even if eyewitnesses are not examined.
BRMR,J
15.3 In Karri Naga Padma Sridevi3, High Court of Judicature of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad held that contributory negligence has to be proved
after the negligence of respondent No.3 - driver. Contributory negligence
is a matter of proof and not an assumption.
16. The facts in the above said decisions are distinguishable from the
facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not
apply to the case on hand in view of the fact that Ex.A4 - charge sheet
coupled with Ex.B2 - rough sketch clearly show that the deceased Babu
Rao was on the wrong side of the road. The learned Tribunal has fixed
50% of contributory negligence on the deceased. This Court fixes the
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 25%.
17. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,600/- per month, deducted
1/3rd towards personal expenses and arrived at Rs.6,400/- [9,600 - (1/3
of 9,600/- = 3,200)], arrived annual income at Rs.76,800/- [6,400 x 12],
taken the age of the deceased as 43 years, applied multiplier '11' and
arrived at Rs. 8,44,800/- [76,800 x 11] rounded off to Rs.8,45,000/-, as
the deceased contributed 50% to the accident arrived at a sum of
Rs.4,22,500/- [50% of Rs.8,45,000/-]. Further, the learned Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and in total
BRMR,J
arrived at a compensation of Rs.4,72,500/- with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization.
18. PW2 has testified about the salary particulars of the deceased
K.Babu Rao. As per Ex.A5, his gross salary is Rs.11,269/-. Though there
are other deductions, only professional tax has to be deducted i.e.,
Rs.20/-, rest of the deductions to be added to the salary. The salary of
the deceased is taken as Rs.11,249/- (Rs.11,269/- - Rs.20/-) which is
rounded off to Rs.11,250/-. As the age of the deceased is taken as 43
years, he falls within the age group of 41 to 45 the appropriate multiplier
would be '14' as per the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another 4. Personal expenses are to be
deducted at 1/4th as the number of dependents are 4 to 6. Appellants-
petitioners are entitled for future prospects, consortium, loss of estate
and funeral expenses as per the decision of the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranayi Sethi and others 5.
19. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under:
Sl.No Name of the Head Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1. Income Rs.11,250/-
2. Add 30% future prospects Rs.14,625/-
11,250 + 3,375
30% of 11,250 = 3,375/-
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
BRMR,J
3. Deduct 1/4th towards personal Rs.10,968.75
expenses 14,625 - 3,656.25
1/4th of 14,625 = 3,656.25
4. Annual income Rs.1,31,625/-
10,968.75 x 12
5. Multiplier '14' Rs.18,42,750/-
1,31,625 x 14
6. Deduct 25% towards contributory Rs.13,82,062.5
negligence Rounded off to
Rs.13,82,063/-
18,42,750,-,4,60,687.5
7. Consortium Rs.2,88,000/-
Rs.48,000/- each 48,000 x 6
8. Loss of estate Rs.17,500/-
9. Funeral expenses Rs.17,500/-
Total Rs.17,05,063/-
20. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the Three Judge Bench
of the Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra and Others Vs. National
Insurance Company Limited and another 6. Hence points are answered
accordingly.
21. In the result, MACMA.No.2380 of 2014 is allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:
a) The impugned award dated 16.10.2008, passed in
O.P.No.1087 of 2006, stands modified.
b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,
Rs.4,72,500/- is enhanced to Rs.17,05,063/- together with
(2019) 17 SCC 465
BRMR,J
costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date
of filing the petition till payment.
c) Appellants - petitioners are directed to pay court fee on the
enhanced amount.
d) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the
awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs
less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
e) Appellant No.1 - petitioner No.1 is entitled for an amount of
Rs.8,52,531.5 rounded off to Rs.8,52,532/- and she is
permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with costs
and interest thereon without furnishing security.
f) Appellant No.2 - petitioner No.2 is entitled for an amount of
Rs.1,70,507/- and he is permitted to withdraw his entire
share amount with costs and interest thereon without
furnishing security.
g) Appellant Nos.3 and 4 - petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are entitled
for an amount of Rs.1,70,506/- each, as they are minors
their share amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any
nationalized bank till they attain majority.
h) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 - petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are entitled
for an amount of Rs.1,70,506/- each and they are permitted
BRMR,J
to withdraw their entire share amount with costs and
interest thereon without furnishing security.
Miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand
closed. No costs.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
10.04.2026
Dua
