Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1083
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J.
Ghousiya Begum and 2 Others – Appellant
VS
Qamaruddin and Another – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. No. 34 of 2021
Decided On : 12-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : KULDEEP JADHAV
For the Respondent: V.SATYAM REDDY
The court established that in the absence of specific evidence for income, minimum wages may be utilized to ascertain compensation for dependency claims in motor accident cases.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-A and 337 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claim for compensation - Appeal against reduced compensation for death due to rash and negligent driving - Tribunal awarded Rs.6,65,000/- which was deemed inadequate by appellants - Minimum wage notification considered for income calculation - Court enhanced compensation to Rs.9,34,088/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. (Paras 25, 12, 20, 21)
(B) Assessment of Compensation - Consideration of income based on available evidence necessary - Minimum wages used for determining notional income in absence of valid evidence. (Paras 17, 19)
(C) Dependency and Future Prospects - Consideration of dependents' loss and future prospects essential in quantum determination - 50% deduction for personal expenses in calculation. (Paras 21, 20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimants seek enhanced compensation for wrongful death. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding compensation assessment. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court analyzes evidence and liability aspects. (Para 9 , 10 , 15) |
| 4. court evaluates income proof for compensation calculation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. calculation of compensation based on minimum wage principles. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. court modifies compensation and details payment orders. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J.
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (FTC), at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.336 of 2013 by order and decree dated 19.11.2020, the appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased viz. “Abdul Sajjad”. Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are sisters of the deceased. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 21.08.2012, the deceased along with his brother-in-law, namely, Shaik Ali and his friends, namely, Shaik Afzal and Qayyam went to Dharmabad village by train to greet their relatives on the eve of Ramzan festival. On the same day i.e., 21.08.2012, they were returning in auto trolley bearing No. A.P.25.V.2126 to Nizamabad; while so, when the said auto trolley reached the outskirts of Yemcha village, at about 17:00 hours, the driver of the said auto trolley drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle; as a result, the said auto trolley turned turtle, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to said injuries while undergoing treatment in Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad, on the same day.
4. Based on a complaint, Police-Navipet P.S., Nizamabad District, registered First Information Report No.140/2012 under Sections 304-A and 337 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 against driver of the crime vehicle i.e., auto trolley bearing No.AP.25.V.2126 and after investigation, filed charge sheet.
5. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and was working as mason and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. It was stated that the petitioners were solely dependant on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accident, the family suffered a lot and lost a young earning family member, his love and affection and were left in misery. Therefore, the petitioners as dependants of the deceased, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) against both respondents jointly and severally.
6. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, negligence and involvement of crime vehicle in the accident and called for strict proof of the same. It was contended that the driver of the said auto trolley was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and the said vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle and that the terms and condition of insurance policy were violated. Therefore, on the above grounds the Insurance Company assailed its liability to pay any compensation amount. It was further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the case.
7. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following three issues.
i) Whether on 21.08.2012 at about 17:00 hours in the shivar of Yemcha village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Auto trolley bearing No.AP.25.V.2126 by its driver?
ii) W
