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.1314 of 2019 DATE: 21.01.2026 Between:

Smt Devalapalli Parvathamma and five others …..Appellants AND Om Prakash Sankhila and another ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellants–claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 31.10.2012 passed in O.P.No.1080 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar(for short “the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,04,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, for the death of Late Eshwar Goud (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.10.2009, the deceased was proceeding on his Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-S-8395 from Yadagirigutta towards his residence at Jillelaguda, Ranga Reddy District, along with the first appellant, Smt. Devalapalli Parvathamma, as pillion rider and when they reached near Mahalaxmi Wines, Uppal Bus Depot in Boduppal Police Station limits, a DCM van bearing No.AP-28-W-2129being driven in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction, on the wrong side, collided with the motor cycle, due to which the deceased sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, the deceased was taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad wherehe succumbed to his injuries at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day. The Police, Uppal Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.991 of 2009 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the said DCM vehicle. Alleging that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM van and that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family, the appellants-claimants, being wife, children, and dependent mother of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-on account of the death of the deceased in the said motor vehicle accident.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit denying liability and contended inter alia that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, and accordingly the insurer was not liable to indemnify. It also contended that the claim was excessive and thus prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The Tribunal, after considering oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM van and that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annumfrom the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimantsvehemently contended that the Tribunal incorrectly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, despite the evidence suggesting he earned Rs.8,000/- per month as a mason; that the Tribunal failed to consider appropriate future prospects in computing compensation; that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate and unjust; and that the appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance company argued that the Tribunal was justified in fixing the income at Rs.3,000/- per month in absence of cogent documentary evidence of higher earnings; and that the impugned award passed by the tribunal cannot be interfered with, as the it was within the parameters of evidence and legal principles.

6. There is no dispute that the accident occurred on 22-10-2009 due to rash and negligent driving