Telangana High Court
Karnam Padma vs K. Naveen Kumar on 6 August, 2025
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
M.A.C.M.A.No.509 of 2021
Between:
Karnam Padma W/o Late Karnam Jagadish
Aged about: 40 years, Occ: House hold,
R/o H.No.3-4-1/9/A, Amberpet,
Hyderabad - 500 013.
... Appellant
And
1. K. Naveen Kumar S/o K. Yadagiri,
Aged: Major, Occ: Owner of motor ccycle bearing
No.AP28BS9260
R/o H.No.4-37-152/2, Rama Krishna Nagar,
Jagadirgutta, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep by its Manager (Legal),
3rd Floor, Osman Plaza,
Near Nagarjuna Circle,
Punjagutta X Roads, Hyderabad 082.
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 06.08.2025
Submitted for approval.
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
2
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
+ MACMA. No.509 of 2021
% Dated 06.08.2025
Between:
# Karnam Padma W/o Late Karnam Jagadish
Aged about: 40 years, Occ: House hold,
R/o H.No.3-4-1/9/A, Amberpet,
Hyderabad - 500 013.
... Appellant
And
1. $ K. Naveen Kumar S/o K. Yadagiri,
Aged: Major, Occ: Owner of motor ccycle bearing
No.AP28BS9260
R/o H.No.4-37-152/2, Rama Krishna Nagar,
Jagadirgutta, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep by its Manager (Legal),
3rd Floor, Osman Plaza,
Near Nagarjuna Circle,
Punjagutta X Roads, Hyderabad 082.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri P. Chandra Mouli
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar
<Gist:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. AIR 2017 SCC 5157
2. 2025 Supreme (Online) (TEL) 1846
3. MACMA.No.1374 of 2016
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
3
4. MACMA.No.10 of 2018
5. MACMA.No.706 of 2010
6. AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1832
7. (2004) 5 SCC 385
8. MACMA.No.335 of 2014
9. MACMA.No.1374 of 2016
10. MACMA.No.10 of 2018 dated 04.04.2022
11. AIR Online 2009 SC 231, (2009)
12. 2025 Supreme (Online) (TEL) 1846
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
4
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.509 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 19.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2675 of 2014 passed
by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV
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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on
22.05.2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased was going as a pillion
rider on a motor bike bearing No.AP-28-BS-9260 along with one
Vivek Bharathi, while P. Sai Kumar was riding the said bike
belonging to one Naveen Kumar/respondent No.1 from
Ramanthapur towards Sri Ramana X Roads, Amberpet, Hyderabad
and that the rider of the motor bike has driven it in a rash and
negligent manner at a high speed in a zigzag fashion and that when
they reached Agra Sweets Shop, Vinayak Nagar, Amberpet, an
ambulance bearing No.AP-22-T-6818 which was proceeding in the
same direction, dashed the motor bike of the deceased, due to which
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
5
the deceased and others fell down and the deceased received fatal
injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation
of Rs.5,00,000/- by filing a petition under Section 163-A of the MV
Act.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. Respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of
the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age,
avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that
initially the crime was registered, and charge sheet was filed by the
police against the driver of the ambulance bearing No.AP-22-T-6818
for not holding valid driving license and as the vehicle was plying on
the road without fitness certificate and permit but the petitioners
failed to implead the owner of the ambulance bearing No.AP-22-T-
6818 and insurer of the ambulance. Respondent No.2 contended
that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the
motor bike and that they are not liable to pay compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the
following issues for trial:-
“1. Whether the deceased-K.Hemanth Kumar @ Hemanth died on
22.05.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-BS-9260?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how
much and from whom?
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
6
3) To what relief?”
7. To prove their case, petitioners got examined PW1 and got
marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was
examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.4,41,500/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the
present appeal is preferred by the claimants.
9. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Chandra Mouli, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal
failed to consider the evidence of PW1 and the documents under
Exs.A1 to A5 and has failed to award more compensation. He
contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any amounts towards
future prospects and has failed to consider the other heads of
compensation as per the guidelines laid down in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1. He further argued
that they have stated before the Tribunal that the deceased used to
1
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
7
earn Rs.3,300/- per month, but the Tribunal failed to consider the
same. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation by
considering the said guidelines.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has
argued that the petition was filed under Section 163-A and thus, the
quantum as projected in II Schedule has to be taken into
consideration but not otherwise. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the
order and decree of the Tribunal.
12. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for
consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-
1. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of
compensation?
2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any
interference ?
3. To what relief ?
13. Point No.1:
a) The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the Tribunal
has failed to add 40% towards future prospects as per the principle
laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Others. He further argued that the amounts awarded under
conventional heads also is very less and thus, failed to apply the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cited decision and has
prayed to enhance the compensation.
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
8
b) But the record reveals that the petition is filed under Section
163-A. Once the compensation is claimed under 163-A, it has to be
awarded only as per the II Schedule. Since the accident pertains to
the year 2014, the then II Schedule is applicable to the case on
hand. As per II Schedule for age group between 15-20, the
multiplier is ’16’ and when the income is Rs.36,000/- per year, the
compensation is calculated as Rs.6,84,000/-. The deduction as per
the II Schedule is 1/3rd, in consideration of the expenses which the
deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he
been alive, therefore, deducting 1/3rd out of the amount of
Rs.6,84,000/-, comes to Rs.4,56,000/- (Rs.6,84,000/- x 1/3). Funeral
Expenses of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of Estate have
to be awarded. Since, the petitioner is the mother of the deceased,
no compensation is awarded towards loss of consortium, as per the
Schedule II. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.4,60,500/-.
c) It is noticed that the Tribunal went wrong in calculating the
amount, thus, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to
Rs.4,60,500/-, while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,41,500/-.
d) Though the appellant counsel contends that even if the
application is filed under 163-A, the Court has to award future
prospects. It is settled law that once the claim is made under 163-A,
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
9
the compensation has to be awarded as per the II Schedule. The
counsel has filed a decision of a coordinate bench of this High Court
in Bandari Lavanya & 3 Others Vs. Md. Samiuddin & Another’s 2,
wherein the claim petition was filed under 163-A and the Tribunal
has granted compensation by taking the income of the deceased as
Rs.4,000/- per month but a bench of this High Court has taken the
monthly income of the deceased who was a daily labourer as
Rs.4,500/- and went ahead in awarding compensation by adding
future prospects and following the other guidelines laid down by the
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Others.
e) In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Allianz
General Insruance Company Limited, Nizamabad Vs. M. Sarala 3,
this High Court has held that since the claim petition is filed under
Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, no future prospects can be
granted. In this case, the Court has referred to the decision of a
Division Bench of Sikkim High Court in the case of “The Branch
Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dilu
Rani and Others 4; wherein it was held that, “It needs no reiteration
that the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out as evident from the
2
2025 Supreme (Online) (TEL) 1846
3
MACMA.No.1374 of 2016
4
MACMA.No.10 of 2018
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
10
decisions cited supra that compensation to be computed under
Section 163 of the M.V. Act is on the structured formula as it is
based on no fault liability. Once a person invokes the provisions of
Section 163A, the question of inclusion of pecuniary compensation
for non-tangibles and future prospects does not arise. Under Section
163-A future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads
find no place and compensation in a Claim Petition under Section
163A of the M.V. Act is to be strictly computed on the structured
formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Act.”
f) In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.
Ummannagari Akkamma & Others 5, the petition was filed under
Section 163-A, but the Tribunal has granted compensation by taking
the income of the deceased at Rs.54,000/- per annum. It was held
by a Bench of this High Court that if the application is filed under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has no option
except to determine the compensation taking the aid of Second
Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act. Even if the Tribunal comes to
a conclusion that the deceased may earn more than Rs.40,000/- per
annum, the Tribunal has to restrict the annual gross income of the
deceased to Rs.40,000/- only. The High Court had discussed the
decisions of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company
5
MACMA.No.706 of 2010
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
11
Limited Vs. Hansrajbhai Vs. Kodala 6 and Deepal Girishbhai Soni
Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited Baroda 7, and has
allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and reduced the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,19,000/- to
Rs.4,09,505/-.
g) In Sgabana Begum & Others Vs. Burra Rajeshwar Goud
and Others 8, a Bench of this High Court has held that as per the
provisions of Section 163-A of the Act, the maximum income of the
deceased has to be taken as Rs.40,000/- and has applied the
Second Schedule while granting the compensation.
h) In Bajaj Allianz General Vs. M. Sarala Nizamabad District 9,
a Bench of this High Court has dealt with a petition under Section
163-A and it was held that as the petition is filed under Section 163-
A of Motor Vehicles Act, the income of the deceased should be
taken as Rs.40,000/- per annum and that no future prospects can be
granted. By applying the decision of the Sikkim High Court in case of
The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company
6
AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1832
7
(2004) 5 SCC 385
8
MACMA.No.335 of 2014
9
MACMA.No.1374 of 2016
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
12
Limited Vs. Dilu Rai and Other 10, to the said case, this High Court
has reduced the compensation granted by the Tribunal from
Rs.9,51,491/- to Rs.3,61,330/-.
i) In Raj Rani & Ors Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
& Ors 11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that for the
purposes of computation of total amount of compensation under
Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the future prospects may not
be of much relevance, but in a case where the claim petition has
been filed in terms of Section 166 of the Act, the same would be a
relevant factor.
j) Thus, in view of the decisions cited above, it is held that the
claimants are entitled to compensation under a structured formula
basis as per II Schedule once the claim petition is filed under 163-A
and that they are not entitled to future prospects or any other
component apart from what is mentioned in II Schedule.
k) Though the counsel has relied upon a decision of this High
Court in Bandari Lavanya & 3 Others Vs. Md. Samiuddin &
Another 12, in the said decision, the above cited case laws were not
10
MACMA.No.10 of 2018 dated 04.04.2022
11
AIR Online 2009 SC 231, (2009)
12
2025 Supreme (Online) (TEL) 1846
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
13
discussed, therefore, this Court is not inclined to follow the said
decision.
l) Thus, in light of the above cited case laws, it is held that the
claimants are entitled to Rs.4,60,500/-.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.2:-
In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the
order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to
the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the
compensation to Rs.4,60,500/- from that of Rs.4,41,500/- that is
awarded by the Tribunal.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. POINT NO.4:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order
and Decree dated 19.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2675 of 2014 passed
by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the
compensation from Rs.4,41,500/- to 4,60,500/- and the enhanced
amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest
ETD,J
MACMA No.509_2021
14for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The respondents are
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 appellant is entitled to withdraw the said
amount without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADADate: 06.08.2025
ds