JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the order and decree dated 26.10.2025 passed in M.V.O.P.No.674 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of deceased- Mammai Suman (hereinafter referred as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the deceased was aged about 23 years as on the date of the accident and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by running a kirana shop and doing business in paddy and maize. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- without considering the evidence on record and failed to award future prospects as per the settled principles of law. The learned counsel also argued that the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses is on the lower side.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month as there was no substantial proof of higher earnings and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the accident occurred on 18.05.2013 while the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing temporary registration No.AP.10.UL.TR.2530. When the vehicle reached near Laxmi Apartments, Bodhan, the rider drove it at a high speed and in a negligent manner, resulting in the deceased falling and sustaining fatal injuries. The police registered a case in Crime No.136 of 2013 under Section 304A IPC against the rider. To prove the negligence, the claimant examined P.W.2-eyewitness, who corroborated the version of the claimant regarding the rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.

6. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the appellant/ claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- despite the assertion that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month through his kirana shop and agricultural businesses. However, in the absence of cogent documentary evidence such as account books or income tax returns to substantiate an income of Rs.20,000/-, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month, which aligns with the prevailing wage standards for unskilled or semi-skilled workers at the time of the accident in 2013. After deducting one-third (Rs.1,600/-) towards personal and living expenses, the net monthly contribution to the family was determined to be Rs.3,400/-. Given the deceased was 23 years of age, the Tribunal correctly adopted the multiplier of '18', resulting in Rs.7,34,400/- (Rs.3,400 x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency. Furthermore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- toward loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection and estate, and Rs.15,600/- toward funeral expenses, totaling a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned findings of the Tribunal. This appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand clos