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.350 of 2019 DATE: 20.01.2026 Between:

B. Raju and another …..Appellants AND Mohd.Farhatha Sultana and two others ….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 20.12.2018 passed by the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.P. No.394 of 2014 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, for the death of their son late B. Ganesh (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), aged about 8 years, in a road accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.07.2014, at about 9:30 p.m., the deceased B. Ganesh, aged about 8 years, sustained fatal injuries in a road accident that occurred at Jarripothula Maishamma, Wanaparthy, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP-22-Y-2794. The offending bus, owned by respondent No.1, was driven in a negligent manner and struck the deceased while he was crossing the road along with his family to attend celebration of “Jarripothula Maishamma”. The deceased was immediately shifted to the Area Hospital, Wanaparthy, where he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The police of Wanaparthy Police Station registered a case in Crime No.178 of 2014 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the offending bus. Contending that the accident and resulting death were caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the appellants-claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, Mahabubnagar seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of their son.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3, being owner and hirer (TSRTC) of the bus respectively, appeared but did not choose to file any counter. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter, denying rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and alleged contributory negligence on the part of the claimants. It was also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, thereby breaching the terms of the insurance policy and thus prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, directing respondent No.2-Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the bus. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellants-claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2022 (1) SCC 317, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed notional income at Rs.25,000/- per annum for a non-earning child and allowed filial consortium and other conventional heads, vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting a very low notional income for the deceased. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal failed to appropriately consider future prospects of the deceased while assessing compensation; that the Tribunal awarded meagre amounts under conventional heads; that the overall compensation granted by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate; and thus

prayed for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel also contended that interest at 7.5% per annum should be awarded as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mannat Johal and others

6. On the other hand, learn