IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN M.A.C.M.A.No.264 OF 2020 DATE: 12.12.2025 Between:

Alige Bhagya and 2 others.

…Appellants AND Vadla Ram and another.

…Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.10.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.28 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (hereinafter "Tribunal"

for brevity) for enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.11.2013 when one Alige Bhumanna (deceased) was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 25-W-3249 from Suddalam Village towards Dichpally side and when the auto reached Shabarimatha Temple on B.T. Road in the limits of Suddalam Village and at about 12.30 P.M. an auto trolley bearing No.AP-25-X-5992 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the auto bearing No.AP-25-W-3249 from behind, due to which, the said auto turned turtle, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the appellants, who are wife and children of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- from the respondents. The Tribunal after elaborate enquiry and trial, has passed an order granting compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization directing respondent No.2 to deposit the said amount and recover the same from respondent No.1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy learned counsel for the appellants and Sri L.Sainath Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A6, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded paltry sum as compensation.

5. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased realistically and on the higher side and applying the relevant multiplier, considering the age of the deceased, ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation. It was also contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding consortium to the widow and the daughters of the deceased and also erred in exonerating respondent No.2-Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation and prayed to allow the appeal by awarding just and reasonable compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has asserted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore, interference of this Court is unwarranted.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the impugned order and decree passed by the Tribunal calls for interference by this Court? If so, whether the appellants are entitled for any enhancement of compensation and in what quantum?"

8. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the appellants and the deceased and also with regard to the occurrence and manner of the accident. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of P.W.1-

wife of the deceased and P.W.2-eye witness to the incident coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet and Ex.A3-inquest report has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.

9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though t