2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2885
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
Y. YADAMMA and 2 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
KHADER KHAN and ANOTHER – Respondent
MACMA 728/2019
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
I.A.No.4 of 2015
In/And
M.A.C.M.A.No.728 of 2019
DATE: 29.01.2026
Between:
Y. Yadamma and two others
…..Appellants
AND
Khader Khan and another
….Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in
the judgment and decree, dated 17-10-2014 passed by the Chairman,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.2290
of 2012, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants
along with I.A.No.4 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation to
Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.07.2008 at about 9.00
a.m., the deceased Y.Sathi Reddy was proceeding by walk from
Bahadurpura to Koka-Ki-Tatti for attending labour work and when he
reached Dargha at Puranapool, a motorcycle bearing No.AP 13 N 3518,
driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased from
##PAGE2##2
behind. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was
immediately shifted to Osmania General Hospital and thereafter to
Shadan Hospital, Himayatnagar, where he succumbed to his injuries
on 06.08.2008. A report was submitted to Bahadurpura Police, who
initially registered Crime No.207 of 2008 for the offence under Section
337 IPC and subsequently altered it to Section 304-A IPC against the
rider of the motorcycle. Alleging that the death was caused solely due to
the rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle, the
appellants-claimants, being the wife and sons of the deceased, filed the
aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the
death of the deceased, together with future interest @ 18% p.a.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the motor
cycle remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed
counter, denying negligence and liability, and contended that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The insurer
also alleged that the rider of the motorcycle had no valid driving licence
at the time of the accident, thereby absolving it of liability under the
terms of the insurance policy, and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and
##PAGE3##3
negligent riding of the motorcycle and awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as
compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the order
till realization in favour of the appellants-claimants. Challenging the
same, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal along with
I.A.No.4 of 2015 seeking enhancement of the compensation.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. So far as negligence and liability are concerned, the Tribunal’s
finding on rash and negligent riding of motor cycle and liability of the
respondents is sustained.
7. Coming to assessment of compensation, it is not in dispute that
the deceased died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent
riding of the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and insured with
respondent No.2. The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of
accident. The Tribunal adopted a notional annual income of
Rs.36,000/-, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique v. Reliance
General Insurance Company Ltd, 2025 INSC 673. 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
##PAGE4##4
formula for the accident year 2008, the income of the deceased ought to
have been fixed at Rs.6,500/- per month.
8. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700, even self-employed
persons are entitled to addition to