SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top