SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA 
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.
Thallagudem Lavanya , Sharada - Appellant 
Vs.
D. Chandraiah - Respondent 
M.A.C.M.A. Nos.128 and 374 of 2021 
Decided On : 09-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : C MOHAN PRAKASH

Court increased compensation for death in motor vehicle accident, emphasizing the need to account for loss of dependency and consortium for all dependents.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Compensation for death due to motor vehicle accident - Claimants sought Rs.20,00,000/- but Tribunal awarded Rs.15,62,120/-; Court found that compensation was insufficient and recalculated total to Rs.16,70,600/- considering loss of dependency, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses - Evidence established negligence by tractor driver - Claimants entitled to enhanced compensation. (Paras 1, 3, 10, 14, 15)

(B) Contribution of negligence - Assessing negligence of deceased against the driver of another vehicle - Claims should account not only for loss of dependency but also for loss of consortium to all dependents - Age and future prospects of deceased considered in fixing compensation. (Paras 12, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed for compensation due to the death of T.Raju in an accident involving a tractor and trailer on 04.04.2016, contending the accident was due to the negligent driving of the tractor driver. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.15,62,120/- based on its assessment. Respondent was the insurance company of the vehicle involved. (Paras 1, 8)

Findings of Court:
The compensation was insufficient; proper assessment of losses was made resulting in recalculation of compensation at Rs.16,70,600/-. (Paras 14, 15)

Issues: The main issues revolved around the determination of negligence, the entitlement to compensation, and whether the Tribunal's awarded amount was just. (Paras 12, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while assessing compensation, all dependents are entitled to claim consortium and that the loss of dependency should be calculated with proper deductions and considerations for future earnings and family needs. (Paras 14, 15)

Result: The M.A.C.M.A. No.128 of 2021 filed by claimants is partly allowed enhancing compensation; M.A.C.M.A. No.374 of 2021 filed by Insurance Company is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. accident details and initial claims. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. discusses the evidential basis and issues framed for consideration. (Para 2 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments regarding compensation amount. (Para 10 , 11)
4. analysis of evidence and assessment of compensation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. modification of tribunal's compensation ruling. (Para 15)
6. conclusion on appeal decisions. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT :

(TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.)

The appellants – claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation, while M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.11.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1175 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), granting compensation of Rs.15,62,120/- against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one T.Raju (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in the accident occurred on 04.04.2016.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 04.04.2016, the deceased T.Raju was proceeding on his bike bearing No.AP 09 AQ 0445 from Ibrahimpatnam to Dandumailaram Village and when he reached near Gurunanak Engineering College, one Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 24 X – 0370 & AP 29 TB 3705 came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the bike of the deceased, due to which he fell down, sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the petitioners have filed an application seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1/the owner of the crime vehicle and respondent No.3 who was the driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.2/the insurer of the crime vehicle, filed counter denying the material averments as to the occurrence of the accident, age, income and avocation of the deceased. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bike rider and that there was no negligence of the tractor driver.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident occurred on 04.04.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP24X – 0370 & AP-29TB 3705?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Whether the policy is in force at the time of accident?

4. To what relief?”

7. At the time of trial, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.15,62,120/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of 2021 while the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of 2021.

9. Heard the submission of Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.20 Lakhs but has awarded less compensation and that the Tribunal failed to accept the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and has assessed a very low income of Rs.6,500/- and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and towards loss of consortium.

11. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal has grossly erred in granting compensation to the petitioners and that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased. He further contended that there is no rash and negligence of the tractor driver. He further contended that the deduction towards personal and li

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top