Telangana High Court
Budtula Laxmi And 4 Others vs Kambampally Ananth Reddy And Another on 13 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
****
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2791 of 2013 and 1046 of 2019
DATE: 13.03.2026
MACMA No.2791 of 2013
Between:
Budtula Laxmi and 6 others.
...Appellants
AND
Kambampally Ananth Reddy and another
...Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since these two appeals arise out of the order dated 06.05.2013 passed in O.P.No.57 of 2011, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Smt.Aitha Prabhavathi, learned counsel for the appellants - claimants and Sri Neeraj Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri N.Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Corporation in MACMA No.2791 of 2013. Sri Neeraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant- Corporation and Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel appearing for respondents-claimants in MACMA No.1046 of 2019. 2
3. MACMA No.2791 of 2013 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement and MACMA No.1046 of 2019 is filed by the respondent-Corporation seeking to set aside the order dated 06.05.2013 passed in O.P.No.57 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, 'the Tribunal').
4. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. before the learned Tribunal.
5. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are daughters and petitioner Nos.4 (who died and his legal representatives - appellants 6 and 7 were brought on record in MACMA No.2791 of 2013, vide order dated 19.01.2026 in I.A.No.3 of 2025) and 5 are the parents of the deceased, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 26.01.2011 at about 14:45 hours at the outskirts of Annaram Village.
6. The facts leading to file the MVOPs are that on 26.01.2011 while the deceased was returning to Karimnagar on his Hero Honda Passion Motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 AG 7925, and he reached the outskirts of Annaram Village, near Hanuman Temple, the respondent No.1 who drove the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 28 X 543 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the motorcycle from opposite direction, as a result of 3 which, he fell down and sustained severe head injury and immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar, where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment and the police Manakondur registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2011 under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1 and later filed the charge sheet against him.
7. It is also stated that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 38 years and was working as Village Revenue Officer, Challur Village of Veenavanka Mandal, earning a salary of Rs.12,298/- per month. In addition, he was earning Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum from agriculture. Therefore, the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation from the respondents jointly and severally.
8. The respondent No.1-driver remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal, while respondent No.2-Corporation, being the owner of the offending RTC bus, filed the counter-affidavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 while riding the offending bus, as such, the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle are necessary parties to the petition and also the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant, and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the O.P. 4
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
"i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 543?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
iii) To what relief?"
10. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, the respondent No.1 was examined as RW.1 and no documentary evidence was marked.
11. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal opined that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the respondent No.1.
12. As regards issue No.2, the learned Tribunal after examining the oral evidence of P.W3-Deputy Tahsildar coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A.6-salary certificate, assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs.10,400/- per month. As per Exs.A.2-inquest report and Ex.A.5-post mortem report, the age of the deceased was assessed as 38 years, and accordingly, applied a multiplier of '15', and an amount of Rs.21,06,000/- was awarded 5 towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards funeral expenses, transportation, loss of estate and loss of consortium, bringing the total compensation to Rs.21,46,000/-.
13. Though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was getting an income of Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum from agriculture and filed Ex.A.7-pattadar pass book to substantiate the same, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the said claim on the ground that Ex.A.7 was issued in favour of Budtula Vinod Kumar and not in the name of the deceased and therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased owned agricultural land or derived any income therefrom.
14. On the aspect of liability, the learned Tribunal held that since the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1, who was under the employment of respondent No.2, and the latter, being the employer, is vicariously liable for the acts of its driver. Accordingly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals have been preferred - one by the claimants and the other by the TSRTC.
15. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,400/- instead of Rs.12,298/-, as evidenced by Ex.A.6. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to take into 6 account the pattadar pass book, which shows that the deceased owned agricultural land and was deriving income therefrom. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in applying a multiplier of 15, despite the fact that the deceased had approximately left with a service of 20 years, even if the retirement age is taken as 58 years. Accordingly prays for enhancement of the compensation.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation contended that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent No.1-driver, and it failed to consider the carelessness of the deceased himself. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erroneously determined the age of the deceased as 38 years without there being any proof. Finally, it is contended that the learned Tribunal awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation to the claimants and that the rate of interest is also excessive and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
17. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions urged by the parties and perused the record.
18. At the outset, insofar as the manner of the accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal, upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 4, who were said 7 to be eye-witnesses to the accident and whose evidence remained unshaken in the cross-examination, except for a suggestion that they did not witness the incident, which they denied, together with documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 and A.3, recorded a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by respondent No. 1. Since such a finding of fact based on proper evaluation of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the said conclusion warranting interference.
19. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the contention of the claimants that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 10,400/- instead of Rs. 12,298/-, as per Ex. A.6 cannot be accepted in a strict sense so as to disturb the ultimate computation. The learned Tribunal has in fact taken a balanced and reasonable view by assessing the income based on the available evidence and thereafter granting an addition of 50% towards future prospects. Likewise, the rejection of the claim relating to agricultural income is well- founded, as the document relied upon under Ex. A.7 admittedly does not stand in the name of the deceased. In the absence of satisfactory proof, the learned Tribunal was justified in discarding the said claim.
8
20. The application of multiplier '15' for a deceased aged 38 years is strictly in accordance with the settled legal principles governing the field. The addition towards future prospects, the deduction towards personal expenses, and the computation of loss of dependency have all been carried out by the learned Tribunal in a methodical manner, consistent with the governing precedents. This Court does not find any arithmetical or legal error in the said exercise.
21. Equally, the amounts awarded under conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium are modest and reasonable. The contention of the claimants seeking enhancement as well as the contention of the respondent- Corporation alleging that the compensation is excessive, are both devoid of merit.
22. On the question of liability, the learned Tribunal took note of the fact that the respondent No.1 was the driver of the offending bus owned by the TSRTC and was under the employment of the respondent No.2. The learned Tribunal has rightly invoked the principle of vicarious liability, under which an employer is vicariously liable for the acts of his employee and held respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, 9 which is in consonance with settled law and does not call for any interference.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just, reasonable, and based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles. The same does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
24. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 13.03.2026 GJ 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2791 of 2013 and 1046 of 2019 DATE:13.03.2026 GJ