Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 127 (TS)

G. Kalpana v. M. Venkatesh Goud

2026-01-21

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2026
UDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – XIV Additional Chief Judge [Fast Track Court], Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.2733 of 2011 dated 16.05.2014. 2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 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. 4. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 to 4 – petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the son and daughters of the deceased G.Padma Rao. 5.1 Appellants – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization against respondents Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 5.2 It is stated in the petition that on 28.07.2011 while G.Padma Rao and his wife G.Kalpana were returning to their residence on a motor cycle after attending funeral ceremony of their relative at Kistapur village, when they reached near Mushroom Company at about 22 hours one DCM van bearing No.AP-37-T-4498 driven by its driver in a high speed, rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle of G.Padma Rao from the back side. Padma Rao and his wife G.Kalpana [appellant No.1 herein] fell down and sustained severe injuries and fractures on the vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, G.Padmarao was shifted to nearby Hospital, for better treatment he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad and he succumbed to injuries while undergoing the treatment. On the complaint PS Toopran has registered a case in Crime No.174 of 2011 under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. As on the date of accident, deceased-G.Padmarao was aged about 38 years, was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by doing milk business, agriculture and provisions shop and he used to contribute the same to the maintenance of the family. As on the date of accident, deceased-G.Padmarao was aged about 38 years, was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by doing milk business, agriculture and provisions shop and he used to contribute the same to the maintenance of the family. Due to the death of the deceased- G.Padma Rao the appellants – petitioners have suffered mental agony, shock and hardship and prayed to allow the claim petition as prayed for. 6.1 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6.2 Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the age, income and the manner in which the accident has taken place. It is further contended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler and the owner and insurer of the vehicle are necessary parties to the proceedings. The compensation claimed by the appellants – petitioners is excessive, arbitrary and prayed to dismiss the O.P. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased Sri.G.Padma Rao, S/o. Isthari, died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM van bearing No.AP 37 T 4498? 2. Whether the petitioners are the LRs of deceased and if so, whether they are entitled for any compensation and what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence. 9. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the appellants - petitioners with that of Exs.A1 to A5 has partly allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.10,36,250/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month though he was a businessman and agriculturist and awarded less amounts on different heads. The Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum and the Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the appellants - petitioners. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Maheshwari and Others Vs. Ramachandran and Others 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 1506, (ii) Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi Vs. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Maheshwari and Others Vs. Ramachandran and Others 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 1506, (ii) Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi Vs. Abdul Munaf and Others , 2025 ACJ 1621 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the income of the deceased is Rs.4,500/- per month and rightly awarded just compensation. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Charlie , 2005 LawSuit (SC) 553 , (ii) Chandra @ Chanda @ Chadraram and Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Others , 2021 LawSuit (SC) 595 and (iii) Sannala Bhaskar Reddy Vs. M.Sreenivasulu and Another , 2009 LawSuit (AP) 872. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants - petitioners has filed calculation memo showing the enhancement of compensation under different heads. 13. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 14. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the appellants - petitioners? 2. Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.2733 of 2011 dated 16.05.2014 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 15. Appellants – petitioners have challenged the quantum in the appeal. 16. The learned Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased has taken Rs.4,500/- per month and the annual income of the deceased is Rs.54,000/-, added 50% of the income towards future prospects which is arrived at Rs.81,000/- (54,000 + (50% of 54,000 = 27,000)). As the dependants are four in number deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and arrived at Rs.60,750/- (81,000 – (81,000 x ¼)). The age of the deceased is taken at 38 years as per Ex.A2 – certified copy of charge sheet and Ex.A3 – certified copy of medico legal case report and applied multiplier ‘15’ arrived loss of dependency at Rs.9,11,250/- [60,750 x 15]. Further learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total the awarded amount is Rs.10,36,250/-. 17.1 In Maheshwari (supra) Supreme Court has fixed the income of the vegetable shop owner at Rs.15,000/- per month. Further learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total the awarded amount is Rs.10,36,250/-. 17.1 In Maheshwari (supra) Supreme Court has fixed the income of the vegetable shop owner at Rs.15,000/- per month. 17.2 In Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi (supra) Supreme Court held that ‘in the absence of any material to discard the oral evidence of PW1 – wife, we deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the claimant – appellant as Rs.10,000/-’, where he was working as Goundy. 18.1 Normal rule about the deprivation of income is directly not applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source of the deceased’s or injured’s income. In that case, other circumstances have to be considered. [See: Charlie (supra) 18.2 In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence some guesswork is required. [See: Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram (supra) 18.3 In case of death of an agriculturist, the award of loss of value of supervisory charges would itself be the loss of dependency in addition to the conventional amounts that may be awarded towards non-pecuniary damages. [See: Sannala Bhaskar Reddy (supra) 19.1 The evidence of the appellant No.1 – PW1 is that the deceased used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per annum on milk business, provision shop and agriculture and used to contribute the same for the maintenance of the family. Appellant No.1 – PW1 has admitted in her cross examination that she has not filed any document with regard to the earnings of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident the deceased was not earning any amount. 19.2 Respondent No.2 has not elicited material particulars from the cross examination of appellant No.1 – PW1 with regard to the income of the deceased nor led any contra evidence in respect of the income of the deceased. 20.1 As per the claim petition the occupation of the deceased is shown as milk business, provisions shop and agriculture. Deceased is maintaining his wife and three children. The age of the children is 20 years, 19 years and 18 years as shown in the claim petition and they are pursuing their studies. 20.1 As per the claim petition the occupation of the deceased is shown as milk business, provisions shop and agriculture. Deceased is maintaining his wife and three children. The age of the children is 20 years, 19 years and 18 years as shown in the claim petition and they are pursuing their studies. This Court is of the view that the deceased as an agriculturist, milk business and provision shop might have been earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 38 years as per Ex.A3 – certified copy of medico legal case report, the same is mentioned in the claim petition, the appropriate multiplier in the age group of 36 to 40 years is ‘15’ and has deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the number of dependents are four in number as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 20.2 The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and consortium, appellants – petitioners are entitled for the same as per the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Further the learned Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects of self employed but the future prospects are to be added as 40% for self employed who is below the age of 40 years as per Pranay Sethi (supra). 21. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: 22. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the decision in the case of Anjali and others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 . Hence points are answered accordingly. 23. In the result, MACMA.No.407 of 2015 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 16.05.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.2733 of 2011, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.10,36,250/- is enhanced to Rs.21,37,000/- together with 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. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.10,36,250/- is enhanced to Rs.21,37,000/- together with 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 Rs.11,75,350/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. f) Appellant Nos.2 to 4 – petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for Rs.3,20,550/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.