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.204 of 2019 DATE: 02.02.2026 Between:

Smt Chinnapaka Kamalamma and two others.

…..Appellants AND Smt. Ch. Sandya and two others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellants, who are the mother, brother and sister of the deceased-Chinapaka Srinivasa Rao under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 23-07-2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.26 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.10,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Out of the said amount, the Tribunal apportioned Rs.9,00,000/- to the wife of the deceased, who is the respondent No.1 herein, and Rs.1,22,000/- to the appellant No.1, 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2012 at about 13:20 hours, while the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle from Thummalagudem village towards Rajapet, a bus bearing registration No.AP-24-X-2434, driven in a high speed, rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot instantaneously. The Police Bhongiri (R) has registered a case in Crime No. 90 of 2012 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. The respondent No.1 herein/wife of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon evaluating the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the eye-witness P.W.2, and considering the documentary evidence including the FIR (Ex.A-1) and Charge Sheet (Ex.A-4), held that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus and accordingly, awarded total compensation of Rs.10,22,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellant No.1 and respondent No.1 herein. The present appeal is filed by the appellant Nos.1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the compensation and revision of the apportionment.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

who are brother and sister of the deceased. It is further argued that

the dependency of the wife (respondent No.1 herein) should be curtailed on the ground that she was a minor at the time of marriage and there is a probability of remarriage. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-

and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal.

4. No representation on behalf of respondents.

5. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel and reviewing the material on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal rightly determined that the brother and sister of the deceased cannot be classified as dependents when a spouse and mother survive. The appellants failed to establish that they shared a household or were financially reliant on the income of the deceased. Consequently, they are neither entitled to compensation nor do they possess the standing to appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly declined to award 6. On the quantum of income, the Tribunal noted that although it was claimed the deceased earned Rs.15,000/- per month as a private employee, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the same. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal’s assessment of a notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month, with an addition of 40% towards future prospects, is a reasonable and just estimation in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The application of the multiplier 17 based on the age of the deceased as 30 years and the standard deductions for personal expenses are also legally sound. The apportionment of Rs.1,22,000/- to the mother and Rs.9,00,000/- to the wife reflects a just distribution based on the actual dependency.