##PAGE1##

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.930 of 2019

DATE: 30.03.2026 Between:

M. Sobha and three others.

…..Appellants AND

P.Koteswara Rao and another.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the

judgment and decree dated 16.08.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.113 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one M.Ramesh (hereinafter referred as

“the deceased”), in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- though he was in fact earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as an RMP doctor, in addition to Rs. 40,000/- per annum from agricultural

2

activities and an honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per month as a ward member. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to award amounts under conventional heads as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus the learned counsel prayed this Court to enhance the

compensation.

3. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance

Company.

4. As seen from the material placed on record, on 03.06.2006 at about 1:15 pm, while the deceased was travelling in auto bearing No. AP 1 U 5532 from Devapur to Asifabad near Micro Station, Bellampalli, another Auto bearing No.AP 01 W 2818 (for short ‘the crime vehicle’) being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, hit the auto in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased fell down from the auto and sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in Government Community Health Centre, Bellampally. There is no dispute with regard to the accident and the involvement of the crime vehicle. The primary grievance of the appellants is the inadequate quantum of compensation. The appellants/claimants asserted that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- per month as an RMP doctor, in addition to Rs. 40,000/- per annum from agricultural activities and an honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per month as a ward member. The Tribunal took the

3

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- and assessed the compensation. Considering the avocation of the deceased as an RMP Doctor and the cost of living at the time of the accident occurred in the year 2006, this Court deems it appropriate to take the monthly income as Rs.5,000/-. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5,000/- X 12). After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs.40,000/- (Rs.60,000/- X 1/3^rd). Since the deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident, as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation¹, the appropriate multiplier is '14'. Applying the multiplier ‘14’, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 14). 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.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under the conventional heads. Accordingly, the total

compensation comes to Rs.6,51,000/- (Rs.5,60,000/- + Rs.91,000/-).

5. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,75,000/- to Rs.6,51,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

1

(2009) 6 SCC 121

4

judgment. The remaining terms and conditions of the Tribunal shall

stand unaltered. No order as to costs.

As