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.684 of 2019 DATE: 09.03.2026 Between:

Gothi Ravitha and three others …..Appellants AND Brij Mohan Jain 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 14.03.2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P. No.456 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.35,000/- under "no fault liability" in favour of the appellants-claimants with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, for the death of Gothi Namdev (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), aged about 7 years, in a motor vehicle accident, after attributing contributory negligence to the driver of the Tata Van in which the deceased was traveling.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.05.2007, at about 11:00 a.m., the deceased was proceeding in the Tata van bearing No.AP-01-V-4875 from Koratikal Village to Bhutai Village and when the van reached the outskirts of Rollmamda village on National Highway No.7, a lorry bearing No.HR-38-K-3029, driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Tata van. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died while being shifted to the hospital. The police of Neradigonda Police Station registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2007 under Sections 304-A, 338, and 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending lorry. Contending that the accident and resulting death were caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, the appellants-claimants, being the siblings of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving and alleged that the driver of the Tata van was responsible as it was carrying approximately 55 persons unauthorizedly in a goods vehicle. The Tribunal, considering the evidence, concluded that there was contributory negligence and fixed 50% of the liability on the Tata van and awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- under the head of "no fault liability," holding that the deceased had no earnings. Aggrieved by the finding on contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation, the appellants-claimants preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu1 contended that the compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under "no-fault liability" is patently meager for the death of a 7-year-old child; that the notional income ought to have been fixed at Rs.25,000/- per annum; and that the appellants-claimants are also entitled to other conventional heads as per settled law. Learned counsel further contended that the finding of 50% contributory negligence was erroneous, as there was no evidence or plea from the respondents to support such a finding.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal's award was based on the fact that the Tata van was overcrowded, which contributed to the accident, and that the compensation awarded was just and reasonable, warranting no interference.

1 2022 (1) SCC 317

6. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal fixed 50% liability on the Tata van merely because it was carrying 55 passengers. However, the FIR was registered solely against the driver of the lorry. In the absence of specific evidence proving that the driver of the Tata van contributed to the acc