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
| 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

V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and another
Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others
Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
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 ....
The court ruled on proper compensation calculations for death in a motor accident, emphasizing the relevance of accurate income assessment and recognition of future prospects and dependents’ loss.
Compensation in motor accident cases must reflect accurate income assessments considering future earning potential and age-based multipliers, enhanced from Rs.3,37,200 to Rs.8,20,000.
Future loss of dependency in motor accident claims must reflect proven earnings and applicable legal principles to ensure just compensation.
Compensation in motor vehicle accidents must reflect fair dependency, considering future prospects and not be arbitrary or unjustifiable.
Compensation for loss due to death must equitably reflect the deceased's income and family's dependency, recognizing all legal dependents' right to consortium and care.
The court emphasized that compensation must reflect actual income and loss of dependency principles, adjusting awards to accommodate dependents' needs post-accident.
The court clarified compensation calculation principles, emphasizing proper disability assessment and multiplier application for just compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.
The court modified the compensation for accidental death from Rs.18,00,000 to Rs.22,20,000, upholding the principle of just compensation based on appropriate income calculations and adjusting interes....
Compensation for personal injuries must be just and reflective of medical expenses, pain, and suffering, with judicial scrutiny against past tribunal awards.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.