[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Bhukya Dudi vs Kashthuri Satyanarayana And 2 Others on 15 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.1139 of 2019
DATE: 15.04.2026
Between:
Bhukya Dudi
.....Appellant
AND
Kashthuri Satuyanarayana and two others
....Respondents
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,
Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short, "the Tribunal") in O.P. No.309 of
2011, dated 05.05.2014, on account of the death of Bhukya Kishan
in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 28.01.2011 at about 5:00 PM,
the deceased, along with his friend, was returning on a motor cycle
after visiting Janpahad Darga. When they reached the outskirts of
Nagireddygudem, a lorry bearing No. AP-24-T-5005, driven in a rash
and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed the motor
cycle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died
on the spot. A criminal case in Crime No.10 of 2011 under Section
304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.
The appellant/claimant, being the mother and dependent of the
deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The
Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending lorry and awarded a total compensation of
Rs.2,46,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the
quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal
erred in fixing the income of the deceased at a very low figure despite
evidence showing that the deceased was a graduate. It is further
contended that the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier by taking
into account the age of the claimant instead of the age of the
deceased. It is also submitted that no addition was made towards
future prospects and that the amounts awarded under conventional
heads, as well as the rate of interest, are wholly inadequate. Hence, it
is prayed that the compensation and the rate of interest be suitably
enhanced.
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent No.3-Insurance Company submits that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant
interference.
5. Upon a careful examination of the record, this Court is of the
considered view that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the
manner of the accident and the liability of the respondents does not
call for interference, as the same is based on proper appreciation of
evidence.
6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has
taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and, after
deducting 50% towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier '13'
by taking into account the age of the claimant, thereby arriving at
Rs.2,34,000/- towards loss of dependency. The said approach is
contrary to the settled principles of law.
7. It is well settled that the multiplier has to be applied with
reference to the age of the deceased and not the age of the
dependents. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 22
years at the time of the accident; therefore, the appropriate multiplier
is '18'. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income has to
be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the contribution to
the family would be Rs.1,500/- per month (Rs.3,000/- less 50%). The
annual contribution would be Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1,500 × 12). Applying
the multiplier '18', the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,24,000/-.
Further, in view of the settled law, the appellant/claimant is entitled
to addition towards future prospects. Since the deceased was below
40 years of age, an addition of 25% towards future prospects is
warranted. Accordingly, 25% of Rs.3,24,000/-, i.e., Rs.81,000/-, is
added. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,05,000/-
(Rs.3,24,000/- + Rs.81,000/-). In addition to that, as per the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi 1, the appellant/claimant is
entitled to Rs.91,000/- under conventional heads. Accordingly, the
total compensation is recalculated at Rs.4,96,000/- (Rs.4,05,000/- +
Rs.91,000/-).
8. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance
Company contends that the appellant/claimant had claimed only
Rs.4,00,000/- and, therefore, the compensation cannot exceed the
claimed amount. However, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another2
and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 3, and considering that the
Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to award just
(2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2011) 10 SCC 756
3 2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
compensation, this contention cannot be accepted. The Courts are
empowered to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed.
9. Coming to the rate of interest, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Mannat Johal and others 4 and other subsequent decisions, the
appropriate rate of interest to be awarded is 7.5% per annum.
Therefore, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% per annum is
enhanced to 7.5% per annum.
10. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,46,000/- to
Rs.4,96,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization. The appellant-claimant is directed
to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. The remaining
terms and conditions of the award passed by the Tribunal shall
remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
appeal shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 15.04.2026
JSU
4 AIR 2019 SC 2079
