IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.2873 of 2015 Date: 02.04.2026 Between :

1. Smt.G.Tarulatha and three others .… Appellants And

1. Shaik Musayab Hussain and Another .… Respondents.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri V.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2 The present Appeal is filed by the claimants assailing the order dated 16.09.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1530 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in granting compensation of Rs.6,78,000/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, as arbitrary.

3 The claimants are wife, mother and children of the deceased Jagjeevan Rao, who was working as driver, died on account of accident on

01.03.2008.

4 The facts leading to the filing of the OP before the learned Tribunal are that on 25.02.2008, the deceased, along with one Madhusudhan Rao, was travelling on a scooter bearing No.AP-7V-8498 from RTC Cross Roads towards VST at about 9:40 p.m., when they were passing near Bus Bhavan, the rider of a motorcycle bearing No.AP-9BM-1556 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the scooter of the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased and his friend sustained multiple injuries. The deceased was initially shifted to Gandhi Hospital and from there to Sri Krishna Neuro Hospital, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to the injuries on 01.03.2008.

5 Claiming that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and that, due to his sudden demise, the appellants suffered irreparable loss, the appellants approached the learned Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

6 The respondent No.1 remained exparte. The respondent No.2 filed counter claiming that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooter bearing No.AP-7B-8498 and that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

7 Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the deceased died in the accident on 25.02.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-9BM-1556?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?”

8 Before the learned Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 and X-1 were marked on behalf of the appellants/claimants. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked.

9 It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as driver in the united Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation.

10 The learned Tribunal, basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 documents, considered the age of the deceased as 53 years. The multiplier applicable was taken as 11. The deceased was having 5 years of service as on the date of accident and if he was in service, he would have earned increments at Rs.250/- per year and was also entitled to DA and HRA. Therefore, the income of the deceased was considered as Rs.5000/- and odd for the rest of the period and assessed Rs.60,000/- per annum month, and even 1/^3rd of the said amount was deducted towards personal expenditure, Rs.48,000/- per year towards maintenance of the family.

11 The learned Tribunal considering the multiplier ‘11’, came to conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,28,000/- and in addition to the same, the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, and that appellant No.1 is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium. Thus, in all the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.6,78,000/- towards compensation along with 6% interest.

12 Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal failed to apprec