THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY MACMA No.112 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, is directed against the order and decree dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.2913 of 2016. The appellants herein i.e., legal heirs of the deceased-Ediga Anil Kumar Goud seek enhancement of the compensation awarded for the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.09.2016, the deceased was proceeding from Vavilala village to Leeja village on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 22 AG 3809 to bring groceries and when he reached Padipuram bus stand, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-21- TT-8650, driven by respondent No.1 dashed to the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, leading to his instantaneous death. Stating that at the time of his death, the deceased had studied M.A., B.Ed., and PGDCA and was working as private teacher and running Xerox-cum-Internet center and used to earn more than Rs.20,000/- per month and that the deceased was the only earning member of the family consisting of the appellants and they were totally dependent upon the earnings of the deceased for their livelihood, the appellants- claimants i.e., his wife, minor son, mother, and grandfather filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner-cum-driver of the lorry remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceased died in the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.12,12,400/- in favour of the appellants-claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would submit that even though appellants-claimants pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal has not only underestimated the income of the deceased, ignoring his educational qualifications and earning potential, but also failed to take note of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, 2025 INSC 673., wherein it was held that the income of an unskilled worker for the year 2004 shall be Rs.4,500/- per month with an increment of

Rs.500/- per month for each successive year. Learned counsel would further submit that taking the accident year herein as 2016, the income of the deceased ought to have been fixed at Rs.10,500/- per month and ultimately, prayed to enhance the compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award of the Tribunal and contended that the claim of Rs.20,000/- per month was not supported by any documentary evidence and therefore the Tribunal rightly adopted notional income. It is further contended that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference.

6. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material on record. The deceased was 29 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal adopted a notional monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique’s case (supra). As per the said decision, the income of Rs.4,500/- fixed for the year 2004 is required to be increased by Rs.500/- per month for every subsequent year. Applying the said formula for the accident year 2016, the income of the deceased ought to have been fixed at Rs.