Telangana High Court
K.Laxmi vs G Seshi Reddy on 18 March, 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.327 AND 1221 of 2018
Date: 18.03.2026
M.A.C.M.A.No.327 of 2018
Between:
K.Laxmi and another. ....Appellants
AND
G.Seshi Reddy and others. ...Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.1221 of 2018
Between:
The Telangana State road Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Managing Director,
RTC "X" Roads,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. ....Appellants
AND
K.Laxmi and others. ....Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.327 of 2018 filed by the claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.1221 of 2018 filed by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation assailing the quantum of compensation, are directed against the very same award and decree, dated 30.10.2017 vide M.V.O.P.No.1922 of 2015 on the file of the learned 2 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of K.Santosh Kumar (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the deceased"), who is the husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2, in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.06.2015. It is stated that on the day, while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle from Bhongir towards Hyderabad slowly on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached near Katamaiah Temple on NH-163, Bibinagar, at that time TSRTC bus bearing No.AP 24 Z 0045 of Suryapet Depot came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The motorcycle was also damaged. The Police, Bibinagar registered a case vide Crime No.91 of 2015 under Section 304(A) IPC. The petitioners/claimants are the mother and sister of the deceased. Since the accident occurred due to negligent act of the 3 offending bus, which belongs to respondents, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 contested the claim by filing counter inter alia contending that the claim made by the claimants is excessive and disputing the age, occupation and manner of the accident. It is also further stated that when the bus reached near flyover bridge, one auto trolley with fire wood, came with high speed in the same direction and tried to overtake the bus; in the meantime, one motorcycle rider has tried to overtake from the gap of auto trolley and the bus; the bus driver observed the same in the mirror and taken the bus to left side; the driver of the motorcycle lost control and hit the auto trolley and fell on the road and sustained injuries. It is submitted that as per the report and enquiry it was found that the auto trolley left the scene, but the bus driver and every passenger witnessed that it was the mistake of the motorcycle and auto trolley and at no point of time the motorcycle or auto trolley came in contact with the bus. Hence, it is alleged that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 24 Z 0045. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4
5. Considering the claim, counter filed by the respondents and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of the claimants by awarding compensation of Rs.10,97,000/- with 9% interest per annum to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred MACMA No.1221/2018 questioning the quantum of compensation and whereas the claimants preferred MACMA No.321/2018 seeking enhancement of the compensation.
6. Heard Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the claimants, Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the TSRTC and perused the material available on record including the grounds of appeal.
7. The points that arise for consideration in the present appeals are:
(i) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal and if so, to what extent?
(ii) Whether there exist valid and substantial grounds warranting interference with the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal?5
8. The principal contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC is that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased i.e., driver of the motorcycle and the driver of the auto trolley. It is to be seen that the learned Tribunal while answering issue No.1 categorically observed that the respondents did not examine the driver of the bus in support of their contentions. Admittedly, the respondents have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary evidence producing Ex.B1 copy of the insurance policy. The claimants got examined PW2 as an eyewitness to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. However, it is the specific contention of the respondents that PW2 is not shown as eyewitness in Ex.A2. PW2 is alleged to be travelling in the offending bus at the time of accident. Nothing was elicited from the cross of PW2 to establish that PW2 was not travelling in the offending bus as on the date of the accident. The evidence of PW2 is crystal clear that the speed of the bus was 70 to 80 KMPH; the driver of the motorcycle fell down at a distance of 3 feet; bus ran over the head of the deceased. If at all there was any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, then certainly the concerned Police, who have conducted a thorough investigation, would have incorporated the same in the charge sheet but there is no such instance in the instant case. Further, 6 the respondents have not even made any efforts to challenge the charge sheet filed by the concerned police. Moreover, it is not mandatory to examine the eyewitness listed in the charge sheet to establish the negligence of the offending vehicle in these types of cases. It is settled law that charge sheet and FIR are sufficient evidence to prove the negligence, as these type of cases are decided on the "preponderance of probabilities," but not "beyond reasonable doubt". It is also to be seen that the respondents have not made any efforts either to examine the driver of the bus or the driver of the trolley.
9. It is settled law that strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial are not attracted to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. In N.K.V. BROS. (P) LTD. v. M. Karumai Ammal and others 1 the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:
"The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable rashness under section 304A I.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The quantum of compensation was moderately fixed and although there was, perhaps a case for enhancement, the High Court dismissed the cross-claims also. Being questions of fact, we are obviously unwilling to re-open the holdings on culpability and compensation.
Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because 1 (1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 457 7 of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their 'neighbour'. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no- fault liability by legislation."
10. The above view was reiterated by the Honourable Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2, wherein it was held that the standard of proof in motor accident claims is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the accused is acquitted in criminal case, the Tribunal is competent to independently assess negligence. The Court held as follows:
"Suffice it to observe that the exposition
in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge sheet
against respondent No.2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal."
11. Similarly, in Sunita and others v. Rajasthan State Board Transport Corporation and others 3 the Honourable Supreme Court while re-affirming the principles referred above observed as under:
"It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate 2 (2018) 5 SCC 656 3 (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 486 8 the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be held that the learned Tribunal while answering the issue No.1 has meticulously examined the oral and documentary evidence and rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Though the learned counsel for the appellant raised several grounds with regard to false implication of the driver of RTC Bus in the accident, no cogent material is placed either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court to dislodge the said findings recorded by the learned Tribunal.
13. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal had wrongly taken the income of the deceased on lower side without appreciating the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex.A6 and wrongly granted less compensation. The claimants placed on record a brief synopsis showing that they are entitled for Rs.28,87,100/-. Since the claimants have claimed Rs.28,87,100/-, which is more than their claim before the learned Tribunal, the learned counsel for the 9 claimants placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Ramla and others v. National Insurance Company Limited 4, wherein it was held that there is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, as the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award just compensation.
14. The evidence of PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month as a Sales Manager in Tokyo Japan Centre, Abids. However, the evidence of PW3, who is the Admin Manager of Tokyo Japan Centre, is that the deceased was paid Rs.12,000/- from November, 2012 and his salary was increased to Rs.17,000/- per month from three months prior to his death.
15. The reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in not considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.17,000/- per month is that PW3 did not file any record to show that they engaged 25 members as employees and that they were not deducting any applicable deductions. In this connection, the learned counsel for the claimants relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Satpalsingh Dharamsingh Chowdhary and another v. Ashok G. Raut 4 2019 ACJ 559 (SC) 10 and others 5 and on the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench in Damodar and another v. Rajendrasingh and others 6.
16. It is to be seen that the version of the claimant with regard to the salary of the deceased is not consistent. As per the affidavit filed in support of the claimant petition, the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and whereas PW3, who is the Admin Manager in Tokyo Japan Centre, deposed that the deceased was paid Rs.12,000/- from November, 2012 and three months prior to the accident he was being paid Rs.17,000/-. Except the salary certificate, there is no other material to establish that the deceased was being paid Rs.17,000/-. Thus, there is ambiguity with regard to the salary of the deceased. However, there is no dispute that the deceased was working as a sales manager. The salary of the deceased as fixed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month for the occupation of sales manager is very less. In these circumstances, considering the occupation of the deceased as sales manager in a private firm, this Court is of the considered opinion that fixing the salary of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month would meet the ends of justice.
5 2025 ACJ 1900 6 2005 ACJ 474 11
17. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the learned Tribunal had wrongly taken the multiplier and contribution on lower side and wrongly granted less compensation. The deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of accident as per Ex.A3 inquest report and Ex.A8 SSC Certificate of the deceased. The learned Tribunal fixed the multiplier as '18'. As per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 7 the appropriate multiplier for the persons aged between 21 to 25 years is '18'. Since the claimants are two in number, 1/3rd has to be deducted from the earnings of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. However, it is to be seen that the deceased in the instant case is a bachelor, as such 50% has to be deducted. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal deducted 50% of his earnings towards personal and living expenses. Hence, it is clear that the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in fixing the appropriate multiplier and the deductions made towards personal living expenses of the deceased.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that learned Tribunal erred in considering 50% future prospects even though the deceased is not a permanent employee. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants while placing reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Vemuri lakshmi 7 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 12 and others v. M/s. Sree Kaleswari Travels represented by its Managing Partner and Owner of Bus No.AP 31 TT 0414, Visakhapatnam and others 8 wherein the occupation of the deceased therein was considered as one of permanent nature based on the salary certificate, Form 16 and other emoluments paid to the deceased employee. In the said decision, it was observed that the employment of the deceased neither is termed as self employment nor a job on consolidated pay. However, in the instant case, a perusal of salary certificate under Ex.A6, it was clearly mentioned that the deceased herein was paid consolidated pay. Further, there is no instance of any Form - 16 in the instant case. Thus, the facts stated in the above said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
19. As stated supra, the deceased was alleged to have been working in Tokyo Japan Centre on a consolidated pay. There is no material to suggest that the employment of the deceased in Tokya Japan Centre is permanent in nature. The learned Tribunal considered future prospects at 50%. As per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), when the deceased is having temporary employment or self employed and aged below 40 years, future prospects has to be considered at 40% but not 50%. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased 8 2024 (4) ALT 20 13 comes to Rs.16,800/- (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.4,800/-). Since the deceased is a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the net monthly income that was being contributed by the deceased to his family would be Rs.8,400/- (Rs.16,800/- - Rs.8,400/-) per month. As stated supra, the appropriate multiplier for the aged of the deceased is '18'. Adopting the said multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.8,400/- x 12 x 18).
20. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Tribunal erred in granting interest at 9% per annum on awarded compensation without following the principle laid down in T.N. state Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Raja Priya and others 9 and Rajesh and others v. Ranbir Singh and others 10
21. It is well settled that there is no rigid or inflexible rule prescribing a uniform rate of interest in Motor Accident claims. In fact, the matter lies within the discretion of the Tribunal or the Appellate Court to award the rate of interest depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 11, awarded rate of interest at Rs.7.5% per annum. In M/s. United India Insurance 9 (2005) 6 SCC 236 10 (2013) 9 SCC 54 11 (2013) 9. SCC 54 14 Company Limited v. Syed Khadar 12 Bandavath Mangla and another v. Bandavath Suresh and others 13, National Insurance Company Limited v. M. Venkateshwarlu and others 14, United Insurance Company Limited v. Bollam Lingaiah 15, National Insurance Company Limited v. Jagadish Prajapathi16 this Court has also consistently adopted the rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum in similar matters. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that rate of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be reduced from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.
22. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the claimants that the learned Tribunal had wrongly granted less compensation towards loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC contended that learned Tribunal ought to have awarded amounts under conventional heads by relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 17.
12 TSHC: MACMA No.742 of 2021 decided on 04.07.2025 13 2023 SCC Online TS 1095 14 2023 SCC Online TS 1170 15 2024 SCC Online TS 915 16 2024 SCC Online TS 2050 17 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 15
23. As can be seen from the record, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. But as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC, the Tribunal ought to have considered the decision of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and awarded Rs.77,000/- (Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards consortium + 10% enhancement on Rs.70,000/-). Though it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC that the claimants are not entitled for consortium, it is to be seen that the deceased is a bachelor and as per the as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 18, the claimant No.1 being mother of the deceased is entitled for filial consortium. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.18,91,400/- towards just compensation.
24. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.327 of 2018 is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.10,97,000/- to Rs.18,91,400/-. Further, M.A.C.M.A.No.1221 of 2018 is partly allowed to the extent of reducing rate of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum and also to the extent of reducing the future prospects as considered by 18 (2018) 18 SCC 130 16 the learned Tribunal form 50% to 40%. The claimant No.1 being mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.13,91,400/- and the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded to the claimant No.2, who is the sister of the deceased. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amounts awarded to them respectively without furnishing any security. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J Date: 18.03.2026 JS/AS