Telangana High Court
Sanniboyina Prasanna vs Basam Ravindra on 7 March, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.753 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 12.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.671 of 2016 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on
17.10.2015 at about 6:30 hours the deceased S. Chandu and
others were proceeding in DCM Van bearing No.AP-24-TB-5247
from Kandukuru to Malakonda and when they reached near
Cherlapalem Village, one bus bearing No.AP-27-TT-3930 driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed
the DCM-Van due to which the deceased sustained grievous
injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The petitioners
further contended that the deceased was a student and was aged
nine (9) years.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
ETD,J
MACMA No.753_2021
2
5. The respondent No.2/owner of the bus has filed counter
affidavit denying the petition averments and further contended that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the DCM-Van bearing No.AP-24-TB-5247 and that the
respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation and in case
he is held liable, it is the respondent No.3 who has to pay as his
vehicle is insured with respondent No.3.
6. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company has filed counter
denying the case of the petitioners and also have contended that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver
of DCM Van and that the bus driver was not at all negligent and
they further contended that the driver of the DCM-Van did not
have valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that
their company is not liable to pay any compensation.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration:-
1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing No.AP-
27-TT-3930 causing death of Sanniboyina Chandu?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If
so to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief ?
ETD,J
MACMA No.753_2021
3
8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and
Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 Was
examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.
9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a
compensation of Rs.1,42,500/- as against the claim of
Rs.5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have
preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.
10. Heard Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri N.J Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the Tribunal has awarded a very meagre compensation and the
Apex Court has many a times laid down the principles governing
the compensation for minors death and that the Tribunal has
failed to consider the same. He therefore, prayed to allow this
appeal by enhancing the compensation.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
trial Court has rightly assessed the compensation and that there is
no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
13. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
ETD,J
MACMA No.753_2021
4
1. Whether the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as prayed for?
2. Whether the Award and decree of the Tribunal
need any interference?
3. To what relief?
14. Point No.1:
a) The appellants herein are aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation. PW1 asserted that the deceased was aged about
nine years. The PME report under Ex.A3 reveals the age of the
deceased as ten years. The cause of death is shown to be crush
injury on the head with fracture of skull leading to cardio
respiratory arrest. Due to the untimely death of the minor, the
parents are put to lot of mental agony and they need to be
awarded a just compensation.
b) The important question is what shall be the just
compensation to be awarded to the parents of the deceased boy. In
Latha Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar 1, it was held by the Apex
Court that the compensation may be awarded by dividing the
children into the age groups of 5 to 10 and 10 to 15 years and that
it shall not bar the parents to claim prospective loss and it will be
valid. In this case, the Apex Court held that for children between 5
to 10 years of age Rs.2,00,000/- was held to be appropriate
compensation and for children between age groups of 10 to 15
1
(2001) 8 SCC 197
ETD,J
MACMA No.753_2021
5years Annual Income of Rs.24,000/- and a multiplier of ’15’ was
held to be appropriate and in addition conventional amount of
Rs.50,000/- for children of all ages was directed to be paid.
c) In R.K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal 2, the deceased boys and girls
were travelling in a school bus which fell down into Yamuna River
and got drowned, the children were aged between 6 to 17 years.
The Tribunal assessed Notional Income of Rs.15,000/- per annum
and adopted multiplier of ’16’ for the children above 16 years of age
and multiplier ’15’ for children in the age group of 10 to 15 years
and awarded compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/-
respectively for loss of dependency besides Rs.5,000/- in each case
towards Funeral Expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards loss of books in
some cases. The Honourable High Court awarded Rs.75,000/- in
addition towards loss of expectancy of life, pain and suffering in
each case besides Rs.1,000/- for Loss of books in cases wherever
such compensation was not already awarded by the Tribunal. In
this case, the Honourable Supreme Court confirmed the award
passed by the Delhi High Court.
d) In Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala 3, it was the case of the child aged
10 years in the accident, the Apex Court made a departure from
the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and accepted the
2
(2009) 14 SCC 1
3
(2014) 1 SCC 244
ETD,J
MACMA No.753_2021
6
Notional Income of Rs.30,000/- in place of Rs.15,000/-, applying
the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically
since 1994, when the Notional Income of Rs.15,000/- was fixed in
the second schedule. Accepting the Notional Income as
Rs.30,000/- and as per the age of the parents i.e., 36 years, the
Loss of dependency was calculated by applying the multiplier of
’15’ arriving at Rs.4,50,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was
awarded under Conventional Heads. Thus the total sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded as compensation in this case.
e) In Kurvan Ansari Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu 4, the Apex
Court has considered the Notional Income to be Rs.25,000/- for
the age group of seven (7) years and has applied the multiplier as
’15’ and arrived at the Loss of Dependency of Rs.3,75,000/- to
which Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/- each to the parents was
awarded (40,000 x 2 = 80,000/-), Funeral Expenses of
Rs.15,000/- was also awarded. Thereby, the total compensation
that was granted to the parents was Rs.4,70,000/-.
f) Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Meena
Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto Alias Nemchand Mahto 5, wherein
the Apex Court has discussed the decision held in R.K. Malik
(supra), and also the principles laid down in the cases of Latha
4
(2022) 1 SCC 317
5
(2023) 1 SCC 204
ETD,J
MACMA No.753_2021
7
Wadhwa (supra), Kishan Gopal (supra), and Kurvan Ansari
(supra) and has held that Notional Income is to be taken as
Rs.30,000/- including Future Prospects and a multiplier of ’15’
to be applied as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 6. Thus, the Loss of dependency was calculated to
Rs.4,50,000/-, and then Rs.50,000/- was added towards
Conventional Heads, thereby enhancing the compensation to
Rs.5,00,000/- from that of Rs.2,00,000/- that was awarded by the
High Court.
g) It is manifest that the multiplier method is a safest and
uniform method that has to be followed. In the light of the decision
of Apex Court in Meena Devi (supra), the notional income of the
deceased in the present case is taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum,
and by applying the multiplier ’15’ a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- is
awarded towards Loss of dependency. Adding Rs.50,000/- towards
conventional heads, the total compensation comes to
Rs.5,00,000/-.
h) Under the present law and in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
towards compensation, while the Tribunal has granted
Rs.1,42,500/-. Thus, it is held that the claimants are entitled to
6
2009 (6) SCC 121
ETD,J
MACMA No.753_2021
8
the said enhancement in compensation. Therefore, the point is
answered in favour of the appellants.
15. Point No.2:-
In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, the Order and
Decree of the trial Court need to be modified. Hence, the point is
answered accordingly.
16. Point No.3:-
In the result, the MACMA filed by the appellants is allowed,
modifying the Award and Decree dated 12.03.2020 in
M.V.O.P.No.671 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,42,500/- to
Rs.5,00,000/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till
realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is
forfeited. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation
amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the
amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellants
are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any
ETD,J
MACMA No.753_2021
9security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.
No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADADate: 07.03.2025
ds