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.605 of 2019 DATE: 03.02.2026 Between:

Bandari Sunitha and another.

…..Appellants AND Chinthakindi Venkatesh and two others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 28.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.151 of 2018 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (FTC), Mancherial (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,62,500/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Bandari Harshith, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in attributing 50% contributory negligence to the mother of the deceased (PW-1) simply because the child was following her while crossing the road. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased, who was aged about 6 years at the time of the accident, and awarded very low amounts under various conventional heads.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal, after thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the mother in not properly securing the child while crossing the road, and as such, the impugned award requires no interference.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the accident occurred on 09.10.2015 when the offending TATA Bolero bearing No. AP-09-TA-8890 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor deceased. The police registered a case against the respondent No.1-driver and filed a charge sheet after investigation. The deceased was only 6 years old. A child of such tender years cannot be expected to exercise the same degree of care as an adult, and the primary duty of care lies with the driver of the motorized vehicle to be vigilant, especially within village limits. The attribution of 50% contributory negligence to the mother for a 6-year- old child being hit by a speeding vehicle is unsustainable in law.

Therefore, the finding of contributory negligence is set aside.

6. Sofaras as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.30,000/- per annum and applied a multiplier of ‘15’, totaling Rs.4,50,000/-. Following the settled principles for minor children, this Court accepts the loss of income as Rs.4,50,000/-. Furthermore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and agony, and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate. As per the decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram ¹ ¸ the appellants who are the parents of the deceased are entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each.Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,05,000/- (Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of dependency + Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses + Rs.25,000/- for loss of estate + Rs.80,000/- for filial consortium + Rs.25,000/- for pain and agony).

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the claimant had sought only Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore compensation cannot exceed the amount claimed. However, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2011) 10 SCC 756 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC), and considering that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to ensure just and fair compensation, the Courts

2018 LawSuit (SC) 904

are empowered to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed. Hence, the appellants are entitled to the higher amount now assessed.

8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 28.11.20