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.2422 of 2019 DATE: 26.02.2026 Between:

Ramula Komuraiah and another.

…..Appellants AND Govind Ram and three others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 25.06.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.316 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Ramula Sahithi, 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 strenuously contended that the deceased was a child aged about 5 years and the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income at a mere Rs.15,000/- per annum.

He further contended that as per the settled law in Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others1, the notional income for a minor child ought to be taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum. It is also argued that the Tribunal failed to award adequate sums under conventional heads, including funeral expenses and filial consortium.

4. Conversely, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company sought to justify the impugned award, contending that the Tribunal had properly evaluated the evidence and awarded just compensation, which requires no interference by this Court.

5. The factum of the accident, which occurred on 21.02.2012 involving the lorry bearing No.RJ 23 GA 4535, and the resulting death of the deceased are not in dispute. Based on the testimony of PW.1 and PW.2, and the documentary evidence under Exs. A.1 to A.6, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

6. Regarding the quantum of compensation, it is observed that the deceased was 5 years old at the time of the accident. In Kishan Gopal’s case (supra),the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the case of the death of a minor child, it is appropriate to take the notional income at Rs. 30,000/- per annum. As per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2(2009) 6 SCC 121, considering the age of the

1 (2014) 1 SCC 244

younger parent (mother, aged 28 years),the multiplier ‘17’ can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,10,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 17). Furthermore, in view of the principles laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, 32018 LawSuit (SC) 904, the appellants, being the parents are entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Additionally, sums of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses can be awarded. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.6,20,000/- (Rs.5,10,000/- towards loss of dependency + Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses + Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate + Rs.80,000/- for filial consortium).

7. At this stage, learned Standing 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 piece of legislation intended to ensure just and fair compensation, the Courts 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 and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced fromRs.2,55,000/- to Rs.6,20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The appellant