Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager And Another vs Cheruvupalli Rajeshwari And 4 Others on 5 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
MACMA.NOs.544 AND 758 OF 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT:
MACMA.No.544 of 2022:
1.1 This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act by the claim petitioners arising out of an award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – The Court of the Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in
MVOP.No.2074 of 2018 dated 18.07.2022, for enhancement of
compensation.
MACMA.No.758 of 2022:
1.2 This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act by the respondents arising out of an award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – The Court of the Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in
MVOP.No. 2074 of 2018 dated 18.07.2022, to set aside the
impugned award.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter
referred to as the petitioners and the respondents.
2/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
3.1 Petitioners have filed MVOP under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- from the
respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12%
per annum on account of the death of one Cheruvupalli Venu, in a
road traffic accident.
3.2 Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the son
and daughter, petitioner No.4 is the mother and petitioner No.5 is
the younger brother Cheruvupalli Venu. Ch.Venu was a Barber by
profession, running Saloon in the name and style of ‘Vijaya Hair
Cutting Saloon’ near Atmakoor bus stand since 15 years, was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month, same was contributed for the
maintenance of the family and the entire family was dependent on
his earning. On 20/21.08.2018 at about 02.00 a.m., in the night
Ch.Venu boarded APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-03Z-
5353 at Nellore bus stand to go to Tirupathi, when he reached
Anamedu cross roads, Naidupet Mandal, at 04.00 a.m., the driver
has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high
speed, fell asleep while driving the bus and hit the back side of the
stationed lorry bearing registration No.TN-52-J-6535, which was
parked on the left side margin of the road. Cheruvupalli Venu sat
in front left side of the second seat, sustained head injury and
injuries to other parts of the body, died on the spot. Petitioners
have spent Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses. On the
3/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
complaint Police Naidupet has registered a case in Crime No.299 of
2018 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the RTC bus.
Deceased was aged about 33 years as on date of accident and
prayed to allow the O.P.
4 Respondents have filed their counter and denied the nature
of the accident and stated that the accident occurred in fraction of
second and there was no negligence on the apart of the driver of
RTC bus, in fact the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
driver of the lorry. The claim is excessive and prayed to dismiss the
same.
5. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death
of Cheruvupally Venu due to rash and negligent driving of
APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 03 Z 5353, by its
driver?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if
so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the
respondents?
3) To what relief?
6. Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, also examined PW2-
A.Ramesh and PW3-R.Madhava and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.
Respondents did not choose lead evidence.
7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties
and perusing the documents, has awarded an amount of
4/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
Rs.24,89,200/- in favour of the petitioners payable by the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with
proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in
MACMA.No.544 of 2022 submits that the Tribunal ought to have
awarded Rs.35,00,000/- towards compensation as claimed by the
appellant but instead thereof has awarded Rs.24,89,200/-, failed
to appreciate the evidence of PW3 while granting compensation,
erred in taking the income of deceased as Rs.12,000/- instead of
Rs.20,000/-, failed to award funeral expenses, consortium to two
minor children and to his mother, filed a sheet showing minimum
wages in Telangana in 2025 and prayed to enhance the
compensation amount.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants-respondents in
MACMA.No.758 of 2022 submits that the Tribunal erred in
awarding excess and exorbitant compensation for the death of the
deceased Cheruvupalli Venu, failed to see that there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-
03Z-5353 of Srikalahasti Depot and also failed to see that there
was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal
relied on Exs.A1 and A2 to establish that the accident occurred
5/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the bus, which is
not a conclusive proof to hold that the driver of the bus was rash
and negligent. The owner and insurer of the lorry were not made as
parties to the claim petition and the claim petition ought to have
been dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Tribunal
ought to have apportioned the liability at 50-50, erred in taking the
income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month without there
being any proof and infact it ought to have taken notional income
as Rs.15,000/- per annum as prescribed under Schedule-II of MV
Act. The Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 33
years and applied multiplier at ’16’ and also erred in awarding an
amount of Rs.24,19,200/- towards loss of dependency. In any
event the award is highly excessive, out of the proportions and
prayed to allow the appeal.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
11. Now the points for consideration are :
(i) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation, if so, to what amount [MACMA.No.544 of 2022]?
(ii) Whether the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is
perverse, if so, it requires interference of this Court
[MACMA.No.758 of 2022]?
6/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
12. PW2 is the eye witness to the incident, his evidence is that
on 21.08.2008 at night he boarded APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-
03Z-5353 at Gudoor to go to Naidupet and he sat on the left side of
the driver seat, when the bus reached Naidupet Anamedu X Roads,
Naidupet Mandal at about 04.00 a.m., the driver of the RTC bus
drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and
slept while driving the bus and hit the back side of the stationed
lorry bearing registration No.TN-52-J-6535, which was parked on
the left side margin of the road, due to which, he also sustained
injuries to both his knees, left hand palm, left side chest and left
leg fingers. The person who sat on the left side second seat of the
bus has sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and they
were shifted to Government Hospital, Naidupet. Police Naidupet
has registered case in Crime No.299 of 2018 under Section 304(A)
of IPC against the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP-03Z-5353
(Ex.P1). Though PW2 is cross examined, he denied the suggestion
that the driver of the RTC bus slept at the time of the accident and
also denied that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of
the RTC bus.
13. Ch.Vijay who is the brother of the deceased Venu gave
complaint to PS Naidupet on 21.08.2018 contending that the driver
of RTC bus bearing No. AP-03Z-5353 drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed and he slept while driving the bus,
7/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
while proceeding from Nellore to Tirumala he dashed the stationed
lorry from the back side. Due to which Ch.Venu died on the spot.
P.S.Naidupet basing on the complaint dated 21.08.2018 has
registered FIR No.299/2018 on the same day against the driver of
the RTC bus bearing No. AP-03Z-5353 under Section 304(A) of IPC.
14. Ex.A2 – charge sheet is filed under Sections 337 and 304(A)
of IPC in Crime No.299/2018 against the driver of the RTC bus.
PW2 is shown as one of the witness in the charge sheet. Ex.A3 is
the inquest report. Ex.A4 – port-mortem report goes to show that
the cause of death of the deceased Venu is hemorrhage and shock
due to extensive trauma. Ex.A5 – Motor Vehicles Inspector report
goes to show that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical
defects of the crime vehicle. Ex.A6-panchanama show the crime
spot. The evidence of PW2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7 goes show
that it is the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-03Z-5353
drove the bus in a rash and negligence manner and dashed the
stationed lorry while proceedings from Nellore to Tirumala.
15. Appellants-respondents (in MACMA.No.758 of 2022) have not
placed any evidence to support their contention that there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.
Furthermore they have not let any evidence to show that there is
contributory negligence between the driver of the crime vehicle with
8/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
that of the driver of the lorry. It is to be noted here that owner and
insurer of the lorry are not necessary parties to the claim petition.
Hence the contention of the appellant’s counsel is negative.
16. The evidence of PW1 is that the deceased Venu was a Barber
and was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month and he was
contributing his entire earnings to the family and that he was aged
about 33 years as on the date of the accident.
17. PW3 is an independent witness, who deposed that he has a
barber shop under the name and style of ‘Venkat Ramana Hair
Cutting Saloon’ near bus stand at Atmakoor and the deceased
Venu had three workers under him, used to earn Rs.20,000/- after
paying salaries and other expenses. In his cross examination he
stated that the income of the barber will depend on individual
capacity and performance and generally no accounts are
maintained and he do not know whether the deceased Venu
obtained licence from the concerned authorities.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants in MACMA.No.544 of
2022 has filed Minimum Wage of Telangana in 2025 which was
enacted on 01.04.2024. The State is divided into two Zones i.e.,
1. Zone-1: All Municipal Corporations in AP, Selection grade and
Special Grade Municipalities and 2. Zone 2: The rest of the areas in
the state. For Hair cutting shop in charge in Zone-1 is
9/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
Rs.13,196.00 is minimum wage. The accident took place on
20-21.08.2018, the above said Minimum Wages Act is not
applicable to the case on hand. The Tribunal has fixed the income
of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- which is appropriate.
19. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- towards funeral
expenses, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and loss of
consortium. Consortium to two children and mother is not
awarded and they are entitled for the same as per the judgment in
the case of Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram
Alias Chuhru Ram and others 1.
20. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 33 years,
which fact is also mentioned in the claim petition by the petitioners
and the appropriate multiplier is ’16’ as per Smt. Sarla Varma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation Sarla Varma 2. As rightly observed by
the Tribunal that the petitioner No.5 is not dependant on the
deceased, he is not entitled to claim the compensation.
21. The computation arrived is as under:
Sl.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded
1. Monthly income Rs.12,000/-
2. Add 40% future Rs.16,800/-
prospects (((40% of 12,000) = 4,800) + 12,000)
1
(2018) 18 SCC 130
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
10/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
(as per National Insurance
Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi 3)
3. 1/4th deductions Rs.12,600/-
towards personal 16,800 - [16,800 x (1/4)]
expenses
(as per Smt.Sarla Varma's
2
case )
4. Annual income Rs.1,51,200/-
(12,600 x 12)
5. Multiplier '16' Rs.24,19,200/-
(1,51,200 x 16)
6. Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/-
(40,000 x 4)
7. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.26,09,200/-
22. Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum as per
the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others vs.
Lokendra Rathod and others 4.
23. In the result,
(i) MACMA.No.544 of 2022 is allowed in part and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:
a) The impugned award dated 18.07.2022, passed in
MVOP.No. 2074 of 2018, stands modified.
b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
i.e.,Rs.24,89,200/- is enhanced to Rs.26,09,200/-
3 (2017) 16 SCC 680
4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683
11/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of filing the petition till payment.
c) Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is entitled for
Rs.7,82,760/- along with costs and interest thereon and
she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing security.
d) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are
entitled for Rs.7,82,760/- each with costs and interest
thereon, as they are minor their share amount shall be
deposited in any nationalized bank till they attain
majority. Petitioner No.1, being the mother of petitioner
Nos.2 and 3, is permitted to withdraw interest part for the
welfare of the children.
e) Appellant No.4 – petitioner No. 4 is entitled for
Rs.2,60,920/- along with costs and interest thereon, she
are permitted to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing security.
f) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to
deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with
interest and costs less the amount already paid if any
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
12/12
BRMR, J
MACMA.Nos.544 and 758 of 2022
(ii) MACMA.No.758 of 2022 is dismissed.
Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous
application/applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
05.08.2025
Dua