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

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 125

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
Thota Raju Bai and others - Appellants
Versus
Sri Masood Ahmed and another - Respondents
MACMA.No.3603 of 2008
Decided On : 23-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY

The court reaffirmed the principle that compensation awards must reflect the deceased's potential income and future earnings, and that failure of the defense to present evidence allows acceptance of claimant assertions.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 163(a) and 166(1)

(C) - Motor accident compensation claim - Tribunal awarded Rs.4,28,000/-; Court held income of deceased should be Rs.4,500/- per month and enhanced total compensation to Rs.11,57,400/- with 9% interest - The deceased's age was verified as 35 years based on the inquest report and PME report - Tribunal’s valuation of loss not supported; interest was inadequate. (Paras 17, 24)

(B) Evidence Evaluation - Courts are entitled to reassess the evidence in motor accident claims; failure to rebut to be considered. (Paras 17-20)

Facts of the case:
The appeal involves a claim for compensation for the death of Thota Rajeshwar in a vehicular accident on 01.11.2003 - The deceased was 32 years old and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The accident occurred due to negligent driving of a lorry, resulting in severe injuries and subsequent death. Appellants claimed Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. (Paras 5.1, 5.2)

Findings of Court:
The compensation should be aligned accurately with the deceased’s potential income, taking into account future prospects and appropriate multipliers. The award by the Tribunal was found lacking in essential areas. The revised compensation included payment for loss of consortium and love, alongside funeral expenses. (Paras 18, 20, 24)

Issues: The key issues were assessing the true income of the deceased and determining the adequacy of the compensation initially awarded. (Paras 14-18)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that compensation must be just and reflective of current income trends—failure to provide evidence from the defendant leads to acceptance of the claimants’ assertions unless rebutted. A revised multipliers system applies to assess future earnings adequately. (Paras 17-19)

Result: MACMA No.3603 of 2008 is allowed, enhancing the award to Rs.11,57,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Table of Content
1. assailing the tribunal's award under mv act. (Para 1)
2. petitioners' claim on compensation and accident details. (Para 4)

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.

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.3,0

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