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.440 of 2019 DATE: 18.02.2026 Between:

Sri Telu Yellaiah and another.

…..Appellants AND Sri Telu Radhakrishna and four others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants, under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2018 passed in O.P.No.205 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,72,412/- in their favour with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the death of Late Telu Sudhakar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.12.2011, the deceased was proceeding to Gollapally from Madhava Nagar on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-AE-4427 and when he reached near Anjaiah Chicken Centre, Dharamaram Village, the driver of a Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.AP-25-G-3189 came from opposite direction crossing to the wrong side at high speed and collided with the deceased’s motorcycle, which was also struck from behind by another vehicle bearing No.AP-25-AE-9784. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was initially taken to Government Hospital, Nizamabad, for treatment. As his condition was serious, he was shifted to Deccan Hospital, Secunderabad on 02.12.2011, and subsequently to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he succumbed to his injuries on 05.12.2011. The Police of Dichpally Police Station registered a case in Crime No.393 of 2011 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC. Stating that prior to the accident, the deceased was aged 23 years, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture and as a labourer and contributing his earnings for the maintenance of the family and due to the sudden demise of the deceased, they lost their source of dependency, the appellants-claimants, being the parents of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition, under Section 163-A of the Act, before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.2 and 4, being the insurers of the offending vehicles, contested the claim on the grounds of denial of negligence on the part of the insured vehicles and non-production of valid driving licence by the riders and denied the income and dependency claimed by the appellants-claimants. Respondent No.5 contended that he had sold his vehicle (the scooter bearing No. AP-25-

G-3198) prior to the accident and was not liable.

4. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident caused by the involvement of Motorcycle Nos.AP-25-AE-4427, AP-25-G-3198 and AP-25-AE-9784 and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,72,412/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and apportioned liability equally among the owners and insurers of three vehicles. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants-claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre compensation of Rs.5,72,412/- under Section 163-A of the Act, instead of the full claim of Rs.7,00,000/-, by wrongly fixing the annual income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- despite evidence that he earned about Rs.10,000/- per month and owned agricultural land; the Tribunal also failed to properly consider future prospects of income, loss of consortium, and appropriate rate of interest and therefore the award deserves enhancement .

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the appeal contending that the Tribunal properly evaluated the