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.3323of 2019 DATE: 22.01.2026 Between:

Smt.Khursheed Begum and four others …..Appellants AND The TSRTC represented by its Managing Director and another.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

Thisappeal is filed by the appellants-claimants under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 2239 of 2015 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), wherein the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,93,500/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition until the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally for the death of Mohammed Sanaullah (hereinafter referred as “the deceased”).

2. The case of the appellants, in brief, is that on 05.05.2015, the deceased, accompanied by the 5^thappellant, was traveling on an MMTS train from Yakutpura toward Secunderabad. When the train halted at Allugadda Bavi Railway Bridge for a signal, the deceased and other passengers alighted. While they were attempting to board a bus, a TSRTC bus bearing Registration No.AP 11 Z 7524, driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died instantaneously at the spot. A case in Crime No.133 of 2015 was registered on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station against the driver of the offending bus. The appellants, being the legal heirs (wife and children) of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit before the Tribunal denying the allegations regarding the manner of the accident, as well as the age, occupation, and income of the deceased. They contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who failed to observe vehicular traffic while in a hurry to board the bus. They further contended that the claim was excessive and sought dismissal of the petition.

4. On behalf of the claimants, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The respondents examined the driver of the bus as RW-1, though no documentary evidence was produced on their side. The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence on record, including the charge sheet (Ex.A2), concluded that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,93,500/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at a mere Rs.4,500/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased was a TV mechanic and electronic businessman earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He further submitted that as per established precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, even in the absence of specific income proof, the income of a person engaged in such business should be considered higher, at least Rs.6,500/- per month and ultimately prayed to enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal, as prayed for.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the TSRTC maintained that the Tribunal’s assessment was fair and reasonable given the lack of documentary evidence regarding the deceased's specific business location or earnings.

7. A perusal of the record indicates that although the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, they failed to produce any cogent evidence, such as business licenses or customer details, to substantiate this claim. In the absence of such proof, the Tribunal fixed the nominal income at Rs.4,500/- per month. Based on the post-mortem report (Ex.A4), the age of the deceased was 62 years at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier of '7' and deducted 1/4^thof the income towards personal and li