Telangana High Court
Gousia Begum And Another vs M/S Choudary And Company (Hyd) P. Ltd. … on 5 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1115 of 2019
DATE: 05.05.2026
Between:
Gousia Begum and another
.....Appellants
AND
M/s. Choudary & Company (Hyd) P. Ltd,
Rep. by Manish Chowdary, D.No.1-2-3,
Domalguda, Hyderabad and another
....Respondents
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and
decree dated 13.01.2014 passed in M.V.O.P. No.356 of 2012 by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the
Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, for
the death of late Mohd.Azaaz @ Noor (hereinafter referred to as “the
deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.
2) The brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2010, while the
deceased and his friend were proceeding on a motor cycle from
Borabanda to Zaheerabad, near Digwal village limits, a lorry bearing
2
registration No. AP 29T 1404, driven in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against their motor cycle. As a result, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and died on the spot. The appellants, being the
parents of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondents, who are the insured
and the insurer of the crime lorry filed counter affidavit and denied the
manner of accident as pleaded by the claimants and the age and
avocation of the deceased, and further disputing the liability, sought for
dismissal of the claim petition. The Tribunal after evaluating the oral
and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Further, the
Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and by
deducting 50% towards living and personal expenses and by applying
the multiplier of 18, and by adding extra income of 30%, arriving at
Rs.6,31,800/-, but as the claim is for Rs.5,00,000/-, restricted the
compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- and apportioned the amount among the
claimants. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally made
liable to pay the amount. Not being satisfied with the compensation,
the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
3) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the
deceased was a salesman by profession and was earning an amount of
Rs.5,000/-, but the Tribunal has taken the income only as Rs.4,500/-
3
and the same needs to be enhanced. He submits that as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi 1, an addition of 40% of the established income shall be made
towards future prospects, and the claimants are also entitled to
conventional heads, but the Tribunal added only an amount of 30%
towards extra income, and did not grant any amount under
conventional heads, and further as per the judgment of the Apex Court
in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru
Ram 2, the claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards
filial consortium, as they lost their bachelor son. It is submitted that it
is well settled that, based on evidence, if the claimants are entitle to
more compensation, than claimed, the said amount can be granted, but
the Tribunal in the present case, restricted the compensation to the
claimed amount, though it found that they are entitled to more
compensation. With these submissions, the learned counsel sought to
enhance the compensation.
4) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the award passed by
the Tribunal and contended that the compensation awarded is just and
reasonable.
1(2017) 16 SCC 680
2
2018 LawSuit (SC) 904
4
5) There is no dispute that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the crime lorry and that the deceased
died due to the said accident. There is also no dispute that the policy of
the crime vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident. The only
dispute in the present appeal is with regard to quantum.
6) Though the claimants stated that the deceased was earning an
amount of Rs.5,000/-, by working as salesman, they failed to produce
any evidence. Therefore, in the absence of any tangible evidence, the
Tribunal is justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.4,500/- per month. The deceased at the time of accident was found
to be aged 20 years, and his income is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month.
As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi‘s case
(supra), an addition of 40% of the established income shall be made
towards future prospects. 40% of Rs.4,500/- would come to Rs.1,800/-
. Thus the total monthly income of the deceased, including future
prospects, would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/- =
Rs.6,300/-). The deceased is a bachelor, hence 50% is required to be
deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then the monthly
income, which the deceased would be contributing to his family comes
to Rs.3,150/- per month, and annual income comes to Rs.37,800/-.
The deceased is found to be aged 20 years and the appropriate
multiplier is 18. Thus the loss of earnings comes to Rs.6,80,400/-
5
(Rs.37,800/- x 18 multiplier = Rs.6,80,400/-). As per the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra), the claimants are
entitled to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
for funeral expenses + 10% enhancement for every three years) under
the conventional heads, and further as per the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram
Alias Chuhru Ram‘s case (supra), the appellants, being the parents of
the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial
consortium. Thus the total compensation payable to the
appellants/claimants comes to Rs.7,96,400/-.
7) At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the compensation
cannot exceed the claimed amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. However, in view
of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman @ Laxman
Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and another 3 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 4 and
considering that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
intended to award just compensation, the said contention cannot be
accepted. The Courts are empowered to award compensation exceeding
the claimed amount.
3 (2011) 10 SCC 756
4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
6
8) Coming to the rate of interest, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Mannat Johal and others 5 and other subsequent decisions, the
appropriate rate of interest to be awarded is 7.5% per annum.
Therefore, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% per annum is on
the lower side and requires enhancement.
9) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,00,000/- to
Rs.7,96,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition
till the date of realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the
award passed by the Tribunal shall stand unaltered. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
appeal shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 05.05.2026
scs
5 AIR 2019 SC 2079
