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.1223 of 2019 DATE: 01.04.2026 Between:

Smt. T. Kavitha and four others …..Appellants AND T. Narsi Reddy and two others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04.06.2013 passed in O.P. No.82 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,18,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum for the death of one T. Gopal (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2008 at about 6:00 p.m. when the deceased was attempting to board an RTC bus bearing No.AP29TA 312 at Chaitanyapuri Bus Stop, the driver of the said bus moved it in a rash and negligent manner, causing the deceased to fall down and be run over by the rear wheel, resulting in instantaneous death. Stated that the deceased was aged about 25 years and working as a barber, earning Rs.5,000/- per month, and was the sole breadwinner of the family, the appellants-claimants, being his wife, minor daughter, parents and unmarried sister, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,18,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month despite evidence on record; the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4^th towards personal expenses as there were five dependents and should have awarded reasonable amounts under conventional heads; and thus prayed for enhancement of compensation.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Corporation supported the award passed by the Tribunal.

5. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The said finding has attained finality.

6. Coming to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Though the claimants asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and examined PW.3 in support of the same, in the absence of cogent documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the income fixed by the Tribunal requires reasonable enhancement considering the nature of avocation of the deceased as a barber and the year of accident i.e., 2008. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is re-fixed at Rs.4,500/- and thus the annual income comes to Rs.54,000/-. As per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1(2009) 6 SCC 121, since there are five dependents, 1/4^th of

the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3^rd deducted by the Tribunal. Thus, the net annual contribution comes to Rs.40,500/- (Rs.54,000/- - Rs.13,500/-). The deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.40,500/- × 18 = Rs.7,29,000/-. Further, as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2(2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellants-claimants are also entitled to Rs.91,000/- (Rs.70,