Telangana High Court
S.Pullarao vs K. Narendar Reddy on 27 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal under Section
173 of M.V.Act, 1988 against the Award and decree passed by the IX
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred
to ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1628 of 2015, dated 08.05.2020, wherein
claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition, seeking compensation
of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death S.Gopikrishna, (herein after
referred to as ‘the deceased’) who died in accident occurred on
04.06.2015.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier
filed M.V.O.P.No.1628 of 2015 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988
seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the
accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the
car driver. It is contended that on 04.06.2015, the petitioner No.1(father
of deceased) and deceased were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing
No.AP-29-BJ-4417 from Kunlur Village towards Bandlaguda and when
they reached Shivapuri colony bus stop, one Honda Amaze car bearing
2
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
No.TS-07-EC-0387 which was coming from opposite direction being
driven by its river in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed,
came and dashed the deceased motorcycle, as a result deceased fell
down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.
Immediately the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad and while undergoing treatment, the deceased
succumbed to injuries. The Police registered a case in Crime No.717of
2015 under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of offending
Honda Amaze. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under
various heads.
3. The contention of the claimants/appellants before the Tribunal,
was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 17
years at the time of accident and was studying intermediate. The
deceased was hale and healthy and due to the said accident, the
petitioners suffered mental agony and pain and lost their entire future
and hopes reposed on the deceased. The petitioners claimed
compensation for Rs.8,00,000/- for the said accident.
3
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the
offending car filed counter affidavit which was adopted by respondent
No.2- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and denied all
the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in
which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the
deceased and submitted that offending vehicle driver was also minor
and was tried as a juvenile and acquitted of the charges by the learned
II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
5. Before learned Tribunal, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that actually the deceased was driving the vehicle but not
petitioner No.1 (father of the deceased) at the time of accident and the
deceased was not having valid license and insurance of the vehicle and
also contended the deceased there was head on collusion between the
offending car and the motorcycle, however the police were managed to
book case against the car only in order to help the claim of the
petitioners by suppressing as to who drove the motorcycle at the time of
accident. It is further contended that the accident concurred was due to
rash ad negligent driving of the deceased who was minor and was not
eligible to ride a geared motorcycle. Respondent No.2 reiterated the
same averment before the Tribunal, and submitted that respondent
4
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
No.3- who is son of respondent No.1 was holding driving licence as on
the date of accident. In fact, the police had charge sheeted against
respondent No.3 under Section 181 of M.V.Act. The respondent No.1
committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, hence
respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners
and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the
counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads
as under:
i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of
the deceased S.Gopikrishna, due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., car bearing No.TS-
07-EC-0387 by its driver?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to
what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents.
iii) iii) To what relief?
7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into
the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of
Rs.3,90,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
5
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
8. Being aggrieved and unsatisfied by the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the
claimants/petitioners on the ground that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was aged 17 years and was a bright student studying
Intermediate and was dreaming to become an Engineer and the
deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of offending car. The
learned Tribunal having accepted the contentions of the petitioners that
the due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car the said
accident occurred and the deceased died and also accepted the fact that
deceased was Intermediate student, but without considering the
evidence in proper manner with regard to notional income of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased’s income at
Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Second Schedule of Moor Vehicles Act,
1988 as the deceased was non-earning person.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the
Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-
per month by considering the ground realities and ought to have added
future prospects in the notional income. To substantiate their claim, the
petitioner relied on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
6
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
Krishan Gopal and Another V.Lala and others 1, wherein deceased
boy was aged about 10 years and was assisting his father in his
agricultural work, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken notional
income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum and further
contended that the learned Tribunal has not taken the relevant
multiplier as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation 2 and also not awarded just compensation
under the various head as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3
and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is very meager
and prays this Court to enhanced the compensation.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the
Awarded and submits that after considering the entire evidence
available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just
compensation, which needs no interference.
11. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 & 3.
1
2013 ACJ 2594
2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
3 2017 ACJ 2700
7
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
12. Heard Sri M.Viay Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2- HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited.
Perused the material on record.
13. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against
the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute
regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident.
The only point arouse before this Court in this appeal is that:
i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced
compensation, if so, to what extent?
Point No.1:
14. Admittedly, the deceased died due injuries sustained by him to the
accident occurred on 04.06.2015. The petitioners was 17 years old and
was studying Intermediate at the time of accident, hence it is clear that
the deceased was minor and non earning member. The evidence of PW1
who is also eye-witness and rider of the motor cycle, reiterated the whole
accident and submits that due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending car the accident occurred and deceased sustained grievous
injuries and thereafter immediately shifted to Gandhi Hospital,
8
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
Secunderabad, where the deceased succumbed to injuries, which is
neither disputed nor rebutted by learned counsel for the respondent.
15. In R.K. Malik & Anr vs Kiran Pal & Ors 4, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has emphasized that even though the child was not earning, the
compensation should not be nominal but must reflect the loss of lift and
the impact on the family and the relevant portion of the order reads as
under:
“However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the
experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life
or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it
simply-pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost.
Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that
payment should also be made for non pecuniary losses on account of,
loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life etc. The
Act provides for payment of “just compensation” vide section
166 and 168. It is left to the Courts to decide what would be “just
compensation” in facts of a case.
The real problem that arises in the cases of death of children is that
they are not earning at the time of the accident. In most of the cases
they were still studying and not working. However, under no stretch
of imagination it can be said that the parents, who are appellants
herein, have not suffered any pecuniary loss. In fact, Loss of4 AIR 2009 SC 2506
9
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020dependency by its very nature is awarded for prospective or future
loss. In this context, Lord Atkinson aptly observed in Taff Vale
Rly. Co. v. Jenkins5, as follows:
“In case of the death of an infant, there may have
been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by
its parents during the child’s lifetime. But this will not
necessarily bar the parents’ claim and prospective
loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents
establish that they had a reasonable expectation of
pecuniary benefit if the child had lived.””
16. It is very pertinent to discuss the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & anothers v.
Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr 6,
12. In the judgment in the case of Puttamma & Ors., this Court has
observed that the Central Government was bestowed with the duties
to amend Schedule-II in view of Section 163-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles
Act 1988, but it failed to do so. In view of the same, specific directions
were issued to the Central Government to make appropriate
amendments to Schedule-II keeping in mind the present cost of living.
In the said judgment, till such amendments are made, directions were
issued for award of compensation by fixing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the non-earning
children up to the age of 5 (five) years old and a sum of
5
(1911-13) All England Reporter 160
6
2022 (1)SCC 317
10
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
Rs.1,50,000/(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) for the non-
earning persons of more than 5 (five) years old.
13. In the case of R.K. Malik & Anr. also, this Court has observed
that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 as Rs.15,000/- per annum should be enhanced
and increased as the same continued to exist without any
amendment since 14.11.1994. In the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr.
where the deceased was a ten years old child, this Court has fixed
his notional income at Rs.30,000/- per annum.
14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on
06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II is not yet
amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum
for non-earning members is not just and reasonable.
15. In view of the judgments in the cases in Puttamma & Ors, R.K.
Malik & Anr. and Kishan Gopal & Anr., we are of the view that it is a
fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the
inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living.
17. Considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
principles laid down in several other cases, more particularly, in the
judgment of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & anothers v. Shyam
Kishore Murmu & Anr (cited supra), and considering the ground
realities, this Court is of the considered view that the notional income of
the deceased can be taken as Rs.25,000/- per annum.
11
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
18. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 7
and considering the age of the deceased as 17 years, an additional 40%
of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the notional
annual income of the deceased. Therefore, the annual income of the
deceased would come to Rs.35,000/- (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.10,000).
19. As per the column No.4 of Table prescribed in the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 8,
and considering the age of the deceased as 17 years, the appropriate
multiplier applicable for the deceased’s age is ’18’. Thus, the total loss
of dependency to the petitioner would come to Rs.6,30,000/-
(Rs.35,000/- x 18) (Annual Income x relevant Multiplier).
20. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/-
Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay
Sethi’s Judgment (cited supra).
21. Appellant Nos.1 & 2 being the parents of the deceased, the
appellant Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for compensation to a sum of
7 2017 ACJ 2700
8 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
12
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’
as per Magma’s Judgment (cited supra)
22. Appellant No.3 being the sister of the deceased, the appellant No.3
is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- under the head of
‘loss of consortium’ as per Magma’s Judgment (cited supra)
23. In Sarla Verma‘s case (cited above), the Hon’ble Apex Court,
while elaborating the concept of ‘just compensation’ observed as under:
“Post compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and
equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make
good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money
can do so, by applying, the well settled principles relating to
award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza,
largesse or source of profit.”
24. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited
decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above
and given in the table below for easy reference
13
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
25. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants
would be entitled to as follows:
i) Annual Income (of the deceased)
Rs.25,000/-
ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) =
Rs.25,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.35,000/-
iii) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied
Multiplier = Rs.35,000/- x 18 = Rs.6,30,000/-
v) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads =
Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of filal
consortium + loss of consortium =
Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + 96,800/- + 48,400/- = Rs.1,81,500/-
Total Rs.8,11,500/-
26. By considering the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagappa
Vs.Gurudayal Singh 9, as the Compensation awarded can be more than
the claimed amount”. Therefore, the petitioner, appellants/claimants
are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,11,500/- as against
the awarded amount of Rs.3,90,000/- by the learned Tribunal.
27. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed. The claimants are entitled
for an enhanced compensation of Rs.8,11,500/-, enhancing the
compensation from Rs. 3,90,000/- to Rs.8,11,500/- with interest at
9
2003 (2) SCC 274
14
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.579 of 2020
the rate @ 9 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition
till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the
said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to
the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation
amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the
same manner as ordered by the learned Tribunal. However, the
petitioners are directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced
amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
28. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
27.06.2025
SHA