##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

* * * *

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

M.A.C.M.A.No.12 of 2024

DATE: 19.12.2025

Between

Smt.Sahera Bhanu and 5 others.

…Appellants

AND

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporatin,

Represented by its Regional Manager, Nizamabad and another

…Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the

appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation

awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-Principal District Judge, Nizamabad, in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2021

dated 14.08.2023, to the extent of Rs.9,23,400/-, out of the claim of

Rs.20,00,000/-.

2.

The facts relating to the accident and the death of the deceased,

Mohd.Mahaboob and incurring of expenditure for performing funeral

are not in dispute. The respondents dispute the quantum of

2

compensation claimed to be excessive and also denied their liability to

pay the same to the petitioners.

3.

The learned Tribunal basing on the pleadings framed the following

issues for consideration:

“1. Whether the deceased Moh.Mahaboob died in the motor

accident occurred on 19.11.2020 at Dichpally Railway Station on

Nizamabad-Dichpally Main Road of P.S. Dichpally due to the rash and

negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1988 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so

to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?”

4.

During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners/

claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were

marked. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 examned ets driver

as RW.1 and no document was marked.

5.

The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, both

oral and documentary, held that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1988 by its driver.

The Tribunal further basing on the documentary evidence, in particular

Ex.A.3-copy of inquest panchanama and Ex.A.4-copy of Post-mortem

report, ascertained the age of the deceased as 52 years at the time of

accident and as per the evidence of PW.1, who deposed that prior to

accident the deceased was working as Hamali, fixed the monthly

3

income of the deceased at Rs.6,600/- and after deducting 1/4^th from

his monthly income, assessed his contribution to the family would be at

Rs.4,950/- per month, and it would come to Rs.59,400/- per annum

and the multiplier applicable for the age group of 51 to 55 years is ‘11’.

Hence, the loss of dependency to petitioners on account of the death

of the deceased would be Rs.6,53,400/-. The Tribunal in total granted

an amount of Rs.9,23,400/- towards compensation. However, the

appellants/petitioners seeks to enhance the same by way of this

appeal.

6.

Heard Sri Kuriti Prem V.Swami Naidu, learned counsel for the

appellants and Sri N.Shrushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

the TGSRTC for the respondents and perused the record.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal,

while answering issue No.1 in favour of the appellants that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

bus and also basing the evidence of PW.1, while considering that the

deceased was working as daily labour, misconstrued the notional

income as Rs.6,000/-; and that the Tribunal ought to have granted

compensation under the head ‘transportation’ also, and accordingly

prays for enhancement of the compensation awarded.

8.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants

relied upon a latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh

4

Sadk Shaikh Rafique v/s. Reliance General Insurance

Company Limited, SLP (C) No.26999 of 2023 dated 13.05.2025, to contend that an unskilled worker would be

entitled to claim his monthly earnings at Rs.10,000/-.

9.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that the

amount granted towards compensation by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference by this

Court and accor