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.138 of 2021 DATE: 18.02.2026 Between:

Smt. Badhavath Narsamma and two others.

…..Appellants AND Sri M. Raghu and two others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2020 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 734 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge (FTC) at Warangal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.18,75,000/- in their favour and fastened joint and several liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the death of Late Badhavath Shankar (hereinafter referred as “the deceased”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2016, the deceased left home to go to Girnibavi village for purchasing pesticide for maize crop on his TVS Excel Moped bearing No.AP-36-Y-4565 and when he reached Kommala Bus stage at about 09.00 hours, one College Bus bearing No.AP-36-X-2408 (hereinafter referred to as the “crime vehicle”) proceeding from Warangal to Narsampet side came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and hit the motor cycle of the deceased from back side and as a result, he fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. On the report given by one Badhavath Mangya, the Police of Geesugonda Police Station registered a case in Crime No.122 of 2016 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. Stating that the deceased was engaged in agriculture and a mutton business, earning about Rs.30,000/- per month and as the sole breadwinner of the family, his sudden demise resulted in loss of dependency, guidance, love and affection, the appellants-claimants being the wife and children of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 166(1(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., driver the offending vehicle denied liability on the ground that he was not responsible for the accident and challenged involvement in the collision; respondent No.2 i.e., owner of the offending vehicle admitted ownership of the bus but denied knowledge of the accident circumstances; respondent No.3-insurance company opposed the claim on several grounds including non-compliance with statutory notice requirements, lack of clear proof of income and occupation, and contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding without a licence or helmet.

4. In order to substantiate their claim, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. However, Ex.B.1–copy of the Insurance Policy was marked on their behalf.

5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and awarded compensation at Rs.18,75,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants-claimants preferred this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s income at Rs.15,000/- per month instead of Rs.30,000/-; the Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospects; the amounts awarded under conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate, transportation, etc., were inadequate;

and the rate of interest awarded was on the lower side and accordingly sought for enhancement.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3- insurance company opposed the appeal contending that the Tribunal has considered appropriate evidence and