IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.16 of 2019 DATE: 07.01.2026 Between:

Jonnadula Sarojini and four others …..Appellants AND Shaitk Yusuf Alih and another ….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 23.04.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.254 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Khammam (for short “the Tribunal”), the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2007, when late Ravindra Prasad (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was traveling on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 J 7422 near Kalamandir Centre, Chilakaluripet Town, a lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 3232, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the collision, the deceased fell down and was struck by the tyre of the lorry. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Chilakaluripet, where he succumbed to his injuries. The police of Chilakaluripet police station registered a case in Crime No.94 of 2007 against the driver of the lorry under Section 304-A IPC. Stating that at the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 42 years and was engaged in business (handloom trade) and agriculture, earning his livelihood and that on account of death of the deceased, they have been deprived of his contribution, the claimants being wife, sons and mother of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the lorry remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 i.e., insurance company filed its counter not only denying the date, time and place of the accident and the involvement of the offending lorry, but also denied all allegations of rash and negligent driving and that the driver held a valid driving licence at the relevant time, and also disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased as claimed by the petitioners. Further, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perusing oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, resulting in the death of the deceased and awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,21,250/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization payable by both the respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,375/- without properly considering that he was running a proprietary business with VAT registration and engaged in agriculture. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal should have accepted the Income Tax Returns (Exs.A6 & A7) showing a higher income, and ought to have taken future prospects and other heads of compensation into account. Learned counsel further argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre and not in accordance with established principles, and therefore deserves enhancement.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the impugned award, contending that the Tribunal applied correct principles on evidence before it.

7. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and liability.

8. So far as assessment of compensation is concerned, a careful examination of