Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 159 (TS)

Thota Raju Bai v. Masood Ahmed

2026-01-23

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2026
JUDGMENT : 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 ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.827 of 2004 dated 15.05.2007. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence is not a necessary party to the appeal. 3. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 4. Appellant No. 1 – petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant No.2 – petitioner No.2 is the son and appellant No.3 – petitioner No.3 is the daughter of the deceased Thota Rajeshwar. 5.1. Appellants - petitioners have filed claim petition under Sections 163(a), 166(1)(C) of MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on the death of Thota Rajeshwar against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 5.2 It is stated in the petition that on 01.11.2003 while Thota Rajeshwar was going on his scooter bearing No. AP-25/D-939 from Nandipet towards Nizamabad side, when he reached near Palugu Gutta in the limits of Nandipet village on the road leading to Nizamabad, at about 7:00 p.m., one lorry bearing No. ABJ-539 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Thota Rajeshwar. Thota Rajeshwar sustained multiple fractures to skull, other multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of the body, he was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Speciality Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was treated as inpatient, thereafter for further treatment he was referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and he succumbed to injuries on 15.11.2003 at 03.10 a.m. Appellants - petitioners have incurred Rs.2,00,000/- for the treatment and transportation charges. The deceased Thota Rajeshwar was aged about 32 years as on the date of accident, was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agriculture and cattle business and contributing his earnings to the appellants-petitioners. Appellant No.1- petitioner No.1 has lost her husband, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 - petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have lost their father and prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for. 6.1 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Appellant No.1- petitioner No.1 has lost her husband, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 - petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have lost their father and prayed to allow the O.P. 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 involvement of the lorry in the accident. It is further contended that the respondent No.1 is not the registered owner of the lorry, driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident and prayed to dismiss the O.P. against them. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.ABJ-539 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 8. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 - Nallamuthi Sathyanarayana and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company did not lead any evidence, but got marked Ex.B1 – copy of insurance policy. 9. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence adduced by the appellants with that of Exs.A1 to A7 has partly allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,28,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization holding respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants - petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the income of the deceased with that of the evidence of PW1, erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and ought to have taken justifiable income on the basis of current trends in the income of the people in general. Further, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum and also failed to award amounts under different heads. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and another , (2014) 11 SCC 178 and (ii) Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 and prays to allow the appeal. 11. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and another , (2014) 11 SCC 178 and (ii) Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 and prays to allow the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective, awarded just compensation to the appellants- petitioners, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants – petitioners has filed calculation memo showing the enhancement of compensation which the appellants - petitioners are entitled for. 13. Heard learned counsels on record and perused the material. 14. Now the points for consideration are: 1) Whether the appellants - petitioners were awarded just compensation, if so? 2) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.827 of 2004 dated 15.05.2007 suffers from any perversity or legality, 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 taking into consideration the evidence of appellant No.1 - PW1 arrived income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month as an agriculturist (at the rate of Rs.100 per day), deducted an amount of Rs.1,000/- (1/3rd towards personal expenses) and arrived at a contribution of Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum (2,000 x 12). The age of the deceased was taken as 35 years as on the date of accident in view of Ex.A3 - true copy of inquest report and Ex.A4 - true copy of PME report, applied multiplier ‘17’ arrived at Rs.4,08,000/-, awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and funeral expenses and the total compensation arrived is Rs.4,28,000/-. 17. It is stated in the petition that the deceased Thota Rajeshwar was an agriculturist and was doing cattle business, earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. Except the evidence of appellant No.1 - PW1 there is no material placed to arrive at a just conclusion. Appellant No.1 - PW1 denied the suggestion that she has not spent any amount towards medical expenses and she denied the suggestion that her claim is excessive. Except the evidence of appellant No.1 - PW1 there is no material placed to arrive at a just conclusion. Appellant No.1 - PW1 denied the suggestion that she has not spent any amount towards medical expenses and she denied the suggestion that her claim is excessive. It is to be noted here that that no suggestion is put to appellant No.1 - PW1 with regard to the income of the deceased that he is not earning Rs.15,000/- per month except putting a suggestion that the claim is excessive. Respondent No.2 has not led any rebuttal evidence to buttress the evidence of appellant No.1 - PW1 with regard to the income of the deceased. Hence this Court takes the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. 18.1 In V.Mekala, (2014) 11 SCC 178 Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head cost of litigation. Appellants - petitioners have not claimed litigation expenses in the O.P. but this Court grants an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the same. 18.2 In Magma General Insurance Company Limited 2 Supreme Court has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- each towards loss loss of love and affection. 19. Appellants - petitioners are entitled for future prospects of the deceased, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 20. Appellants - petitioners have not filed any document to show the expenses incurred by them towards the treatment of the deceased, hence they are not entitled for any amount towards the treatment and medical expenses. 21. The appellants – petitioners have mentioned the age of the deceased Thota Rajeshwar as 32 years in the claim petition and the learned Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 35 years basing on Ex.A3 - true copy of inquest report and Ex.A4 - true copy of PME report. Hence this Court takes the age of the deceased as 35 years and the appropriate multiplier in the age group of 31 to 35 is ‘16’ as per Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 22. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: 23. Hence this Court takes the age of the deceased as 35 years and the appropriate multiplier in the age group of 31 to 35 is ‘16’ as per Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 22. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: 23. 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. 24. In the result, MACMA.No.3603 of 2008 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 15.05.2007 passed in O.P.No.827 of 2004, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.4,28,000/- is enhanced to Rs.11,57,400/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) 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. d) Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.8,10,180/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. e) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.1,73,610/- each with costs and interest thereon, as they are minors their share amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.