Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 132
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD T
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
Rasheeda @ Rasheeda Sulthana Begum and Others – Appellant
Versus
Tummalapalli Chandraiah, S/o. Appaiah And Another – Respondent
Macma. No.1409 Of 2012
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : NAGESWARA RAO REPAKULA
For the Respondent: PULLA RAO YELLANKI
Important Points
Subject
Motor Vehicle Claims - Compensation
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.304(a)
Headnote
(B) Compensation Determination - No restriction on amount of compensation awarded beyond claimed amount if evidence supports it - Compensation must be just and reasonable based on the assessment of the Tribunal and applicable legal principles. (Paras 15, 28)
Facts of the case:
The appellants are dependents of the deceased who died due to alleged negligence of the motorcycle rider during a trip. The deceased was a Senior Charge Man with a projected income of approximately Rs.28,449/- per month at the time of fatal injury. (Paras 3.1, 23)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal’s compensation was found inadequate, failing to properly assess liability under comprehensive insurance cover and miscalculating the deceased's future income. (Paras 20, 30)
Issues: Main issues included determination of the accident's liability, adequacy of compensation awarded, and applicability of insurance policy coverage pertaining to pillion riders. (Paras 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the broader interpretation of policy coverage for pillion riders and highlighted the necessity for just compensation that considers future prospects and a fair application of multiplier principles. (Paras 20, 28)
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced significantly. (Paras 31)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments by the parties regarding liability and compensation (Para 5 , 9 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. court's analysis and reasoning for determination of compensation (Para 6 , 8 , 13 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 27 , 30) |
| 4. legal principles governing compensation for pillion riders (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 28) |
| 5. final decision and enhancement of compensation (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V.Act’) assailing the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - Cum - Additional District Judge at Khammam in MVOP No.766 of 2010, dated 09.01.2012.
2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents in MVOP No.766 of 2010.
3.1. Appellants-petitioners have filed claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on the death of the deceased Mohammad Kifayatullah.
3.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant No.2- petitioner No.2 is the son, appellant No.3-petitioner No.3 is the daughter of Late Mohammad Kifayatullah.
3.3. Mohammad Kifayatullah was working as a Senior Charge Man in Dolomite Mines, V.S.P., at Madaram Village and was drawing a salary of Rs.23,732/- per month and the Net salary is Rs.18,089/-. On 05.05.2009, Mohammad Kifayatullah and respondent No.1 who were colleagues went to Hyderabad on their personal work in a Train. Both of them got down the train at Mahabubabad Railway Station. Respondent No.1 offered Kifayatullah to sit on his bike bearing Registration No.AP-20-AA- 3308 as a pillion rider to go to their respective houses. When they were proceeding to Madaram on R & B Road and reached near Oddugudem Village at about 8.30 P.M., respondent No.1 drove the motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner, he did not observe the bricks lying on the road, lost control over the vehicle. Thereby Mohammad Kifayatullah fell down and sustained head injury, he was shifted to Health Care Centre, as the injury is being serious, he was shifted to Kinnera Super Speciality Hospital, Khammam. On the advice of the Doctors, he was again shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, on the way to Hyderabad Mohammad Kifayatullah died on 06.05.2009 at about 4.20 A.M. On the complaint, Police Yellandu has registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2009 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 has lost her husband, appellant Nos.2 and 3- petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lost their father. Kifayatullah would have lived up to 70 years and who could have worked for 15 more years and earned Rs.45 Lakhs and restricted their claim to Rs.20 Lakhs and prayed to allow the OP as prayed for.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident has taken place and further contended that respondent No.1 did not pay extra premium covering the pillion rider for his motor-cycle. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the pillion rider and prayed to dismiss the OP.
6. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP.20-AA-3308?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7. Appellant No.1 is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 – U.Seetharama Raju, PW.3 – P.Venkata Kumar and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Respondent No.2 has examined RW.1 – S.Seshagiri who is the Senior Officer of the company and got marked Ex.B1 – Copy of Insurance Policy.
8. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the par
