Mohd Afroz Akthar

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday, this the 18th day of July, 2025

Present:MOHD.AFROZ AKTHAR, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

M.V.O.P. No. 734 of 2019

BETWEEN:-

V.Moulali s/o Balram, Age:32 Years, Occupation:Mason & Student, R/o H.No.1-94, Ammapur Village of C.C Kunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Presently residing at Marlu, Mahabubnagar Town and District. …Claim Petitioner.

And

1.Gunjula Srinu @ Vadde Srinu s/o Venkatanna, Age:24 Years, Occupation:Owner cum driver of auto bearing No.TS-06-UB-5459, R/o Thirumalapur Village of Chinna Chintha Kunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited rep. by its Branch Manager, Sri Sai Balaji Towers, Axis Bank Upstairs, Raichur Road, Mahabubnagar Town.

…..Respondents.

This petition is coming on 25.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gouri Shankar Advocate for Claim Petitioner and of Sri B.Ashok Goud Advocate for Respondent No.2 and of Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

AWARD (ORDER)

This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident..

2.The averments of the claim petition, in brief, are that:- 2MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025

(i)On 31-03-2019, at about 15.00 hours, the petitioner along with his friend were proceeding to Mahabubnagar from Ammapur village to attend KCR meeting on his Honda CD Delux motor cycle bearing No.TS-08-FU-7978 and when they reached withinin the limits of Ammapur village, at about 15.30 hours, the 1st respondent, who is the driver cum owner of auto bearing No.TS-06-

UB-5459 drove the auto in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner and due to the same, petitioner sustained fracture injury to his knee and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government

General Hospital, Mahabubnagar and from there to Neha Shine

Hospital for better treatment.

ii)It is further averred in the claim petition that Police, Chinna

Chinthakunta registered a case in Crime No.20/2019 for the offence under

Section 337 of IPC against the Respondent No.1 herein.

Iii)It is further averred in the claim petition that by the time of the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy aged 32 years and used to get

Rs.15,000/ by doing Mason work , which he contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained Surgical Correction of long bone fracture, surgical management of Grade-II compound fractures, Grade-II compound comminuted supra condylar fracture of right femur, ORIF with LCP fixation and wound debridement and other sever bleeding injuries all 3MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025 over his body. The petitioner became permanently disabled and lost his earnings. He also spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards his medical treatment and lost his income source. Apart from it, the petitioner was subjected to mental agony and suffered physically. In those circumstances, the petitioner is seeking compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads. By the time of the accident, the 1st respondent is owner cum driver and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, as such to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay the compensation.

3.Though the notice was served, Respondent No.1 did not choose to contest the claim petition and he remained ex-parte and as such, case against him was proceeded ex-parte.

4.Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter, opposing the claim petition. It is inter-alia averred in the counter that no accident took place on the date so alleged and Respondent No.1 never drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there was no negligence on the part of

Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 also denied the mode and manner of the accident, age, earnings and avocation of the injured. There is denial in the counter that the crime vehicle was insured with it. It is further averred that by knowing that Respondent No.1 did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the same is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such the claim against this respondent i.e., insurance company is not maintainable. It is further averred in the counter that the accident took place, due to the sole negligent driving on the part of the rider of the motor 4MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025 cycle bearing No.TS-08-FU--4978 and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto bearing No.TS-06-UB-5459. The respondent no.1 has not complied the provisions of Sec.134(c) of M.V Act., and also the concerned police authorities failed to comply the mandatory provisions of Sec.158(6) of

M.V Act 1988. The amount of compensation claimed by the claim petitioner is high and exorbitant. With the above pleadings, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5.On the basis of above pleadings and the material available on record, my learned predecessor-in-office had framed the following issues to be decided:

1) Whether the accident occurred on 31-03-2019 at about 3.00 P.M on BT road, which leads from Appampally to Thirumalapur in the limits of Thirumalapur village was due to the rash and neglgient driving of auto bearing registration No.TS-06-UB-5459 by the respondent no.1 and whether the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident ?

2) Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered ?

3) To what relief?

6.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, he himself examined as PW1. The doctor who treated PW.1 was examined as

PW.2 and Medical Board Member, who issued permanent disability certificate was examined as PW3 and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 s certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.A3 is certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A4 is certified copy of Crime Details Form,

Ex.A5 is xerox copy of RC of auto bearing No.TS-06-UB-5459, Ex.A6 is xerox copy of policy of crime vehicle, Ex.A7 is copy of driving license, Ex.A8 is disability certificate, Ex.A9 is discharge summary, Ex.A10 is discharge summary, 5MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025

Ex.A11 are medical bills, Ex.A12 is discharge summary and medical bills, Ex.A13 is discharge summary and medical bills issued by Neha Shine Hospital, Ex.A14 are bunch of medical bills, Ex.A15 is xerox copy of SSC memo, Ex.A15 is xerox copy of graduation certificate, Ex.A17 is xerox copy of B.Ed certificate, Ex.18 is driving license of injured and Ex.A19 is xerox copy of workers registration card of injured.

7.On behalf of respondent no.2/insurance company, no witness was examined and no documents were marked but with consent copy of insurance policy is marked as Ex.B1.

8.Arguments of either side were heard and the records are perused.

9.Now, this court proceeds to evaluate the oral and documentary evidence so adduced by the parties.

Issue No.1:-

10.The case of the claim petitioner is that due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing registration No.TS-06-UB-5459 i.e.,

Respondent No.1, dashed against the injured motor cycle bearing NO.TS-08-

FU-7978 in opposite direction, due to which the petitioner fell down from the motor cycle on the road and sustained fracture injuries to his knee and all over the body. On the other hand, the case of respondent No.2-Insurance Company is of total denial and that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing registration No.TS-06-UB-5459 was holding any valid licence and he was not competent to drive the vehicle.

6MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025

11.As stated earlier, Claim Petitioner No.1 himself was examined as P.W.1 and he got exhibited nineteen documents as Exs.A1 to A19. In his chief examination, claim petitioner reiterated the contents of the claim petition asserting that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.TS-06-UB-5459. During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to his negligence by driving the motor cycle. During his cross-examination, he denied that in order to gain more compensation, he has obtained fake disability certificate .

12.Coming to the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.20/2019 of P.S.

Chinna Chinthakunta. The said First Information Report (Ex.A1) was registered against respondent No.1 herein, showing him as accused and driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Crime Details Form and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of charge sheet filed by the police concerned in the above said crime. The above documents are relevant for deciding this issue. Perusal of the above-mentioned documents go to show that Respondent

No.1 herein was arrayed as accused in the crime registered in connection with the accident in question and perusal of Ex.A4 certified copy of charge sheet would show that the investigating officer in the said crime had filed the charge sheet fastening the liability of the accident on the part of the driver of the Auto bearing No.TS-06-UB-5459 i.e., Respondent No.1 herein. Therefore, considering the above documents, this Tribunal holds that the claim petitioner could prove his case to the effect that accident had occurred as a result of rash and 7MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025 negligent driving by the driver of the Auto bearing No.TS-06-UB-5459, due to which the claim petitioner sustained severe fracture injuries in the said accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claim petitioner.

Issue No.2:- 13.The case of the claim petitioner is that due to the accident in question, he suffered fracture of right femur bone, underwent surgery and later, implants were removed by conducting another surgery. It is also his case that in between also he suffered health issues because of the said injury and he sustained 33% of disability. To prove his case, apart from examining himself as

PW.1, the petitioner has also examined the Doctor, who treated him, namely

Dr.M.J.Vijaya Kanth as PW.2. PW.2 deposed that he was running Neha Shine

Hospital in Mahabubnagar and on 01-04-2019, PW.1 was admitted in his hospital with grade-II compound supra condylar fracture of right femur and

PW.1 underwent surgery for the same on 02-04-2019 and accordingly, PW.1 was discharged on 04-04-2019. This witness further deposed that the said injury was grievous and he also spoke about the medical bills, medical certificates and discharge summaries. PW.2 further deposed that the petitioner was again admitted in his hospital on 01-07-2019 for medical treatment and was discharged on 03-07-2019. He also testified about the medical bills and discharge summaries marked as Exs.A9 and A10. The Doctor further spoke about removal of implants by way of surgery done to PW.1 on 15-07-2020. Thus, there is no much controversy about the medical treatment provided by the Doctor to PW.1 and also there is no dispute about PW.1 8MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025 sustaining fracture of right femur bone, his undergoing surgery on couple of occasions and intermittent treatment.

14.It is his further claim that due to such injuries caused as a result of the accident, he suffered 33% of disability and to substantiate his claim, he got marked the disability certificate as Ex.A8 issued by the Medical Board. To prove the same, petitioner also examined member of the Medical Board namely

Dr.K.Thulasi Ram as PW.3 and PW.3 testified about issuing disability certificate (Ex.A8) and he deposed that such disability was due to the accident of fracture of femur bone of right leg. This witness further deposed that it is not possible for the patient to work with the same capacity and he is not in a position to do his regular occupational works, the patient was having limping foot and if the patient stands for longer period, he would sustain pain in the leg. Thus this witness spoke about the partial disability sustained by the claim petitioner due to the injuries caused to him in the accident in question.

15.Now it has to be seen how far such disability is impeding the claim petitioner and effecting his earning capacity and it has also to be seen as to under which head the claim petitioner is entitled for compensation.

16.As far as awarding compensation in cases of personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident is concerned, a leading Judgment of the Hon’ble

Apex Court is apt to be referred at this juncture and it is a case between Raj

Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar and Another in Civil Appeal No.8981/2010. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as to under which head compensation could be awarded and at para no.5 of its Judgment, the Hon’ble

Apex court stated that in such cases, the claim petitioner is entitled for 9MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025 pecuniary damages and also non pecuniary damages and it has further clarified that pecuniary damages include treatment , hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure and also observed that the same includes loss of earnings during course of treatment and loss of future earnings on account of disability if any. Similarly, it is also observed in the said Judgment that non pecuniary damages include, damages for pain and suffering and also loss of amenities and expectation of life etc.,

Guided by the above referred Judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, now this Tribunal proceeds to ascertain, the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled, vis-a-vis for the injuries sustained in the accident in question.

17.It is the case of the claim petitioner that he was a Mason and was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the petitioner did not file any documentary proof to show that he was earning such monthly amount. Despite the same even assuming that the petitioner was unskilled labour and the remuneration paid to such unskilled labour at the relevant time i.e., during the year 2019 must be not less than Rs.400/- per day. Therefore, this court intends to take the amount of Rs.400/- per day as the daily earning of the petitioner and if the same is calculated for whole month, it comes to Rs.12,000/- = (Rs.400/- x 30 days) and his annual income comes to Rs.1,44,000/- =(Rs.12,000/- x 12 months).

MEDICAL EXPENSES:-

18. Petitioner has filed medical bills and hospital medical records to show that he incurred huge expenditure for the purpose of his treatment. However, it is relevant to observe that PW.2 ,the Doctor who treated the claim 10MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025 petitioner, in his cross examination, admitted that the surgery and the treatment provided to the claim petitioner, was covered by the “Arogya Sree” scheme of the Telangana Government and the Government will reimburse the bills. Therefore, in view of the same, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claim petitioner is not entitled for any amount towards medical expenses as he took treatment under “Arogya Sree” scheme of the Government.

LOSS OF EARNINGS:-

19.As regards loss of earnings is concerned, the medical record produced by the claim petitioner coupled with the evidence of PW.2, the Doctor, who treated the claim petitioner goes to show that at the time of the accident, immediately, he was admitted in the hospital, he underwent surgery and was later discharged. Considering the nature of the injury sustained by the claim petitioner i.e., fracture to his right femur bone, he must have been confined to bed at-least for a period of three months soon after the accident and thereby was prevented from attending his daily work and thus, he lost his earnings for the above said period. Therefore, this Tribunal intends to award an amount of

Rs.36,000/- =(Rs.12,000/- x 3 months) towards loss of earnings for the above 3 months. Further, the evidence of Doctor further show that the petitioner was again admitted in his hospital in the month of July, 2019 due to some infection and was again treated and was discharged. In the course of such treatment also the petitioner must have been confined to house and deprived from attending his daily avocation at least for a period of one month. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings for this month. The evidence of PW.2 further show that again in the month of 11MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025

July, 2020, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital, surgery was conducted and implants were removed. At this time also the petitioner must have been on bed rest for at least for som period and though, the Doctor did not depose as to how long the petitioner was advised for rest and though, the claim petitioner also did not plead in his petition as to for how many days he was confined to bed, however, it is a common knowledge that in case of such injuries, a patient would be confined to bed at least for a reasonable period.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that for the subsequent surgery also the petitioner might have been on bed rest for a period of two months and was unable to attend his daily work and thereby lost his earnings for a period of two months. Therefore, this Tribunal awards an amount of Rs.24,000/- towards loss of earnings for a period of two months, which relates to his subsequent surgery. In total the claim petitioner is entitled for Rs.72,000/- towards loss of earnings at different stages of his treatment. Therefore, this

Tribunal is of the opinion that it is just and proper to award an amount of

Rs.72,000/- under this head.

LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY:-

20.It is the case of the claim petitioner that he sustained 33% disability and to prove the same, he has filed Ex.A8 disability certificate and also examined the Doctor, who issued the disability certificate, as PW.3. Before assessing the evidence on record, on this aspect it is very much relevant at this stage to note the settled legal position. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred

Judgment in Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar and Another observed that the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would 12MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025 depend upon the effect and the impact of such disability on his earning capacity. It is further observed the percentage of disability expressed by the

Doctor in the disability certificate refers to the whole body and not to a particular function of the limb. It is also observed by the Hon’ble Apex court that in most of the cases, the percentage of the economic loss i.e., loss of earning capacity arising from such disability will be different from the percentage of disability. Keeping in view of the above observations of the

Hon’ble Apex Court now this court proceeds to evaluate the evidence adduced

by the claim petitioner with regard to his disability.

21.As stated earlier, as per Ex.A8 the disability mentioned in the disability certificate is 33%. However, curiously enough, there is no mention by the

Medical Board in Ex.A8 that as to which part of the body, such disability applies. There is no mention in Ex.A8 as to which part of the body such disability refers and what is its impact on the whole body of PW.1. PW.3 the

Doctor, who is member of the Medical Board, who issued Ex.A8 disability certificate simply stated that it is not possible for PW.1 to work as was doing earlier to the accident and his capacity would be less relatively. He failed to depose whether PW.1 can squat or can he do the other works. Be that as it may, considering the oral facts and circumstances of the case and taking the account of all the medical evidence and the nature of injury sustained by the claim petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claim petitioner sustained disability to an extent of 15% and the same can be termed as a functional disability of his whole body.

13MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025

22.Coming to the calculation of compensation amount under this head is concerned, as discussed earlier this Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the claim petitioner @ Rs.12,000/- per month and per annum income comes to

Rs.1,44,000/-. If 40% towards future prospects is added on that amount,it comes to Rs.2,01,600/-. Thus his annual income comes to Rs.2,01,600/-. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the claim petitioner, who is aged 32 years is “16”. = Rs.32,25,600/- and 15% of the same comes to Rs.4,83,840/-.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it is just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.4,83,840/- to the claim petitioner under this head.

PAIN AND SUFFERING:-

23.As discussed earlier, the claim petitioner was operated twice and he was under treatment on three occasions as inpatient in the hospital. In view of the same and also considering the medical evidence, both oral and documentary, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the injury sustained by the claim petitioner is grievous in nature. Therefore, the pain and suffering undergone by PW.1 can easily be imagined. Therefore, the opinion of this Tribunal an amount of

Rs.30,000/- is considered to be just compensation to be awarded under the head of pain and suffering.

TRANSPORTATION:-

24.The petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges for to and two from his home to hospital etc., .

EXTRA NOURISHMENT:-

25.Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner and the surgery underwent by PW.1 for the injuries, he must have taken some 14MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025 extra nourished food of vitamins etc., for his boney health. Therefore, keeping in the mind same, this Tribunal award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment to the claim petitioner.

ATTENDANT CHARGES:-

26.Considering the nature of the injury and the surgeries underwent by the claim petitioner, some family member must have accompanied the claim petitioner and must have attended him while he was in patient in the hospital.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded as just and reasonable amount towards attendant charges.

27.Thus the claim petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads

Sl. Nature of the compensation Amount awarded (Rs.)

No.

1. Loss of earningsRs.72,000/-

2. Loss of future earnings on account of Rs.4,83,840/- disability

3. Pain and sufferingRs.30,000/-

4. Transportation chargesRs.5,000/-

5. Extra nourishment expensesRs.5,000/-

6. Attendant chargesRs.5,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.6,00,840/- AMOUNT

28.As far as fastening the liability is concerned admittedly, the respondent no.1 was owner cum driver of the crime vehicle and 2nd respondent is the insurer. Ex.B1 is the insurance policy of the crime vehicle and perusal of the same shows that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident.

Therefore, both respondent nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claim petitioner. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

15MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025

Issue No.3:-

29.In view of the findings on issue nos.1 and 2, the claim petitioner is entitled for Rs.6,00,840/- towards compensation together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing of the compensation payable by respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

RESULT:-

i)In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed with costs by awarding an amount of Rs.6,00,840/- (Six Lakhs Eight Hundred and Forty) as compensation directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the claim petitioner with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of depositing of the compensation amount.

ii)The respondent no.2 is directed to deposit awarded amount within 30 days from the date of this Order.

iii)On deposit of the compensation amount, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along with the component of interest accrued thereon and costs.

iv)The Advocate fee for the claim petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Five

Thousand).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 18th day of July, 2025.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

16MVOP No.734/2019, dt: 18.07.2025

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:-

PW.1:V.Moulali PW.2:Dr.M.J.Vijaya Kanth. PW.3: Dr.K.Thulasi Ram

For Respondents:- - None-

Exhibits Marked.

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR,

Ex.A2 is certified copy of wound certificate,

Ex.A3 is certified copy of charge sheet,

Ex.A4 is certified copy of Crime Details Form,

Ex.A5 is xerox copy of RC of auto bearing No.TS-06-UB-5459,

Ex.A6 is xerox copy of policy of crime vehicle,

Ex.A7 is copy of driving license,

Ex.A8 is disability certificate,

Ex.A9 is discharge summary,

Ex.A10 is discharge summary,

Ex.A11 is medical bills,

Ex.A12 is discharge summary and medical bills,

Ex.A13 is discharge summary and medical bills issued by Neha Shine Hospital, Ex.A14 is bunch of medical bills,

Ex.A15 is xerox copy of SSC memo,

Ex.A16 is xerox copy of graduation certificate,

Ex.A17 is xerox copy of B.Ed certificate,

Ex.18 is DL of injured

Ex.A19 is xerox copy of workers registration card of injured.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1Copy of insurance policy,

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday, this 20th day of February, 2026

Present:SRI MOHD.AFROZ AKTHAR, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

M.V.O.P. No. 405 of 2017

BETWEEN :-

Chakali Laxmamma @ Ayelolla Laxmi @ VijayaW/o Late Chakali Narsimha @ Narsimulu, Age:35 Years,Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.2-49, Muchinthala Village,Shamshabad Mandal, presently residing at Indira Nagar,Jadcherla village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Claim Petitioner.

And

1. Mohammed Imtiyaz s/o Mohammed Mahbub Ali Age:Major, Owner of offending Autorickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703, R/o H.No.1-91, Gandhinagar, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Manger, Nort East Plaza, Beside BMW Show Room, Opposite RTA Office, Erram Manzil X road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

…..Respondents.

This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Haleem Advocate for Claim Petitioner and of Sri M.Jagannatha Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and of Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

O R D E R (AWARD)

1.This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, by the mother of the deceased

Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.08.2012 at Kaurampet village, Jadcherla Mandal.

MVOP No.405/2017 2

2.The averments of the claim petition, in brief, are that:-

(i)Claim Petitioner is mother of the deceased Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva and she is legal heir. On 29-08-2012, evening at 19.00 hours, the deceased

Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-22-X7703, from Kaurampet to Jadcherla and on the way at 19.00 hours, when the auto reached in the limits of Kaurampet Village, the driver of the said auto drove in high speed with rash and negligent manner and took turn to escape the opposite vehicle, as a result, Ayelolla Shivakumar @

Shiva fell down from the auto and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and on 30-08-2012, while undergoing treatment Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva died in Vasavi Hospital, Hyderabad.

(ii)It is further averred in the claim petition that Police, Jadcherla registered a case in Crime No.260/2012 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the Respondent No.1 herein.

(iii) It is further averred in the claim petition that deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, Had the deceased not met with the accident, the claimant would have been maintained properly for many more years. The sudden death of the deceased subjected the petitioner to mental agony.

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., auto rickshaw bearing

No.AP-22-X-7703. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the respondent nos.1 is owner and respondent no.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle on the date of accident, as such respondents 1 and 2 are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the claim petitioner together with interest and costs. Hence the petition.

MVOP No.405/2017 3

3.Though the notice was served, respondent no.1 did not choose to contest the claim petition and he remained ex-parte and as such, case against him was proceeded ex-parte.

4.Respondent No.2 filed counter, opposing the claim petition. It is inter- alia averred in the counter that no accident took place on the date so alleged and Respondent No.1 never drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 also denied the mode and manner of the accident, age, and earnings of the deceased. There is no denial in the counter that the crime vehicle was insured with it. It is further averred that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the same is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such the claim against this respondents is not maintainable. It is further averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Tractor, which caused the accident and the tractor had no valid insurance policy. The claim petitioner with the help of the owner, driver of the insured vehicle got involved the insured vehicle in the crime. Hence, the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5.On the basis of above pleadings and the material available on record, my learned predecessor-in-office had framed the following issues to be decided:

i) Whether the accident which occurred on the limits of Kaurampet Village, Jadcherla Mandal on 29-08-2012 at19.00 hours due to rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 driver and whether it resulted in causing death of the deceased/Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva ?

MVOP No.405/2017 4 ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what is the quantum and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claim petitioner, claim petitioner i.e., mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR and complaint in Crime

No.260/2012 of P.S Jadcherla, dated 30-08-2012, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report of Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of

PME of Ayelolla Shivakumar, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A6 is the photostat copy of permit of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703, Ex.A7 is the photostat copy of registration certificate of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A8 is the photostat copy of insurance policy cover note of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 and Ex.A9 is the original memorandum of marks sheet of SSC of Ayelolla Shivakumar. One of the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence of the accident is examined as PW.2.

7.On behalf of respondent No.2, Rws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 is marked.

8.Heard both sides and the records are perused.

9.Now, this court proceeds to evaluate the oral and documentary evidence so adduced by the parties.

10.Issue No.i) :-

The case of the claim petitioner is that due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 by the driver,

MVOP No.405/2017 5 the accident in question occurred in which the deceased Shiva died. On the other hand, the case of respondent No.2 is of total denial and that the the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 is not liable for any accident.

11.As stated earlier, Claim Petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and she got exhibited nine documents as Exs.A1 to A9. In her chief examination, claim petitioner reiterated the contents of the claim petition asserting that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 by the respondent no.1. During her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to due to negligence of driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-22-6302. During her cross- examination, she denied that the accident in question occurred due to negligence of her son and not due to the negligence of auto driver .

12.Coming to the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First Information Report along with complaint in Crime

No.260/2012 of P.S. Jadcherla. The said First Information Report (Ex.A1) was registered against driver of auto rickshaw as accused no.1, showing him as accused and driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME report and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of is MVI report shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto rickshaw and

Ex.A5 is certified copy of charge sheet filed by the police concerned in the above said crime. The above documents are relevant for deciding this issue.

Perusal of the above-mentioned documents go to show that Respondent No.2 herein was owner of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 and the driver

MVOP No.405/2017 6 of the auto arrayed as accused no.1 in the crime registered in connection with the accident in question and perusal of Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet would show that the investigating officer in the said crime had filed the charge sheet fastening the liability of the accident on the part of the driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703. Therefore, considering the above documents, this Tribunal holds that the claim petitioner could prove her case to the effect that accident had occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 , due to which the deceased died in the said accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claim petitioner.

13.Issue No.ii) :-

As per the settled principles of Law, three factors are to be determined, where the death of the deceased occurred in a Motor Vehicle Accident and those three aspects are I) Income of the deceased, ii) Age of the deceased and iii) Number of dependents of the deceased. Once, these factors are ascertained then, it will be just a mathematical calculations to arrive a just compensation.

14.As far as income of the deceased minor is concerned, the learned counsel for the claim petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High

Court Delhi in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s

Bhupan Paswan and Others reported in (2025) ACCi.C.R. 400 (Del) dated 24- 02-2025 and submitted that while assessing the income of the minor deceased in motor vehicle accident cases, the income shall be fixed basing on the

Minimum Wages applicable to a skilled labour/worker. He further argued that

MVOP No.405/2017 7 on such income 40% future prospects shall also be added. On the other hand the counsel for the Insurance company stated that Minimum Wages Act will not be applicable to the minors and he argued that the Judgment relied by the counsel for the claim petitioner is not applicable to this case.

15.This court has carefully perused the Judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner and perusal of it shows that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after referring to the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kajal V/s

Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and also a Judgment of the Apex court in Master Ayush V/s Branch Manager, Reliance General

Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, observed while calculating the income of a minor deceased, the Minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker shall be criteria.

16.To the similar affect is another Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in Rakesh Sharma @ Rakesh and Another V/s Ashok and others,

dated 04-03-2025 in which also the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi enunciated the

same principle that in case of calculating the income of a deceased minor

Minimum Wages Act applicable to a skilled labour at the relevant time shall be taken into account. As stated in the above two Judgments, the Hon’ble Delhi

High Court relied on the decisions of our Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, this court intends to apply the ratio of the cited Judgments to the case on hand.

17.As per Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages applicable to a skilled labour at the relevant period was Rs.242.36/-. Hence, this Tribunal intends to take a round figure of Rs.250/- per day, as the income of the deceased minor at

MVOP No.405/2017 8 the time of accident. Thus the total monthly income would be Rs.7500/- = [ Rs.250/- x 30 days ] and annual income comes to Rs.90,000/- = [ Rs.7500/- x 12]. On the said amount 40% future prospects should be added and 40% on

Rs.90,000/- comes to Rs.36,000/- = [Rs.90,000/- x 40%] in total the annual income of the minor deceased would have been Rs.1,26,000/- = [Rs.90,000/- +

Rs.36,000/-]. Out of the said amount, since the deceased was un-married and survived by a mother, who was dependent, 1/3rd should be deducted towards personal expenses and 1/3rd of Rs.1,26,000/- comes to Rs.42,000/- and if the same is deducted, annual income of the minor deceased would be Rs.84,000/- per annum = [ Rs.1,26,000/- - Rs.42,000/-].

18.Coming to the age of the deceased is concerned, as per Ex.A9 original memo of marks, the deceased completed matriculation and completed 15 years of age and he was about 15 years one month old at the time of accident.

Therefore, as per Smt.Sarla Verma and Other’s Judgment multiplier said group is “M-18”. Thus the total loss of dependency would be Rs.15,12,000/- = [Rs.84,000/- x 18].

19.Petitioner is also entitled for consortium. Petitioner being the mother of the deceased is entitled for filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- Apart from the above, petitioner is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total claim amount comes to

Rs.15,82,000/- = [Rs.15,124,000/- + Rs.70,000/-].

20.Thus, the petitioners are entitled compensation under the following heads:-

MVOP No.405/2017 9

Sl.Nature of the compensationAmount awarded in No.rupees

1.Loss of life, future earning power &Rs.15,12,000/- dependency

2.Loss of filial consortium for petitioner Rs.40,000/-

3.Loss of estateRs.15,000/-

4.For funeral expensesRs.15,000/- TOTAL Rs.15,82,000/-

21.The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount together with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

22.Isue No.iii) :-

In view of my findings on issue nos.i) and ii), the claim petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs & Eighty Two

Thousand) together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing of the compensation payable by respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

RESULT

In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed with costs by awarding compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs & Eighty Two Thousand), directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the claim petitioner with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of depositing of the compensation amount.

i)The respondent no.2 is directed to deposit awarded amount within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

MVOP No.405/2017 10 ii)On deposit of the compensation amount, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along with the component of interest accrued thereon and costs.

iii)The Advocate fee for the claim petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Five

Thousand).

iv)AS per the Order dated 7-11-2017, the petitioner shall pay the court fee

before obtaining the certified copy of Judgment and Decree on the awarded

amount.

v)The Office is directed to check and prepare decree, if theCourt fee is paid in accordance with the compensation awarded by this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade.I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 20th day of February, 2026.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:-

PW.1:Smt.C.Laxmamma PW.2:Mohammed Shujath Ali

For Respondents:-

RW.1: B.Chandradhar Reddy RW.2: K.Naresh Goud

Exhibits Marked.

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR and complaint in Crime No.260/2012 of P.S Jadcherla, dated 30-08-2012,

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report of Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME of Ayelolla Shivakumar,

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of MVI report,

MVOP No.405/2017 11

Ex.A5 is the certified copy of charge sheet,

Ex.A6 is the photostat copy of permit of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A7 is the photostat copy of registration certificate of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A8 is the photostat copy of insurance policy cover note of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703

Ex.A9 is the original memorandum of marks sheet of SSC of Ayelolla Shivakumar.

For Respondents:-

Es.B1 is copy of insurance policy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday, this 20th day of February, 2026

Present:SRI MOHD.AFROZ AKTHAR, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

M.V.O.P. No. 405 of 2017

BETWEEN :-

Chakali Laxmamma @ Ayelolla Laxmi @ VijayaW/o Late Chakali Narsimha @ Narsimulu, Age:35 Years,Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.2-49, Muchinthala Village,Shamshabad Mandal, presently residing at Indira Nagar,Jadcherla village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Claim Petitioner.

And

1. Mohammed Imtiyaz s/o Mohammed Mahbub Ali Age:Major, Owner of offending Autorickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703, R/o H.No.1-91, Gandhinagar, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Manger, Nort East Plaza, Beside BMW Show Room, Opposite RTA Office, Erram Manzil X road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

…..Respondents.

This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Haleem Advocate for Claim Petitioner and of Sri M.Jagannatha Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and of Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

O R D E R (AWARD)

1.This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, by the mother of the deceased

Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.08.2012 at Kaurampet village, Jadcherla Mandal.

MVOP No.405/2017 2

2.The averments of the claim petition, in brief, are that:-

(i)Claim Petitioner is mother of the deceased Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva and she is legal heir. On 29-08-2012, evening at 19.00 hours, the deceased

Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-22-X7703, from Kaurampet to Jadcherla and on the way at 19.00 hours, when the auto reached in the limits of Kaurampet Village, the driver of the said auto drove in high speed with rash and negligent manner and took turn to escape the opposite vehicle, as a result, Ayelolla Shivakumar @

Shiva fell down from the auto and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and on 30-08-2012, while undergoing treatment Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva died in Vasavi Hospital, Hyderabad.

(ii)It is further averred in the claim petition that Police, Jadcherla registered a case in Crime No.260/2012 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the Respondent No.1 herein.

(iii) It is further averred in the claim petition that deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, Had the deceased not met with the accident, the claimant would have been maintained properly for many more years. The sudden death of the deceased subjected the petitioner to mental agony.

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., auto rickshaw bearing

No.AP-22-X-7703. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the respondent nos.1 is owner and respondent no.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle on the date of accident, as such respondents 1 and 2 are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the claim petitioner together with interest and costs. Hence the petition.

MVOP No.405/2017 3

3.Though the notice was served, respondent no.1 did not choose to contest the claim petition and he remained ex-parte and as such, case against him was proceeded ex-parte.

4.Respondent No.2 filed counter, opposing the claim petition. It is inter- alia averred in the counter that no accident took place on the date so alleged and Respondent No.1 never drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 also denied the mode and manner of the accident, age, and earnings of the deceased. There is no denial in the counter that the crime vehicle was insured with it. It is further averred that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the same is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such the claim against this respondents is not maintainable. It is further averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Tractor, which caused the accident and the tractor had no valid insurance policy. The claim petitioner with the help of the owner, driver of the insured vehicle got involved the insured vehicle in the crime. Hence, the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5.On the basis of above pleadings and the material available on record, my learned predecessor-in-office had framed the following issues to be decided:

i) Whether the accident which occurred on the limits of Kaurampet Village, Jadcherla Mandal on 29-08-2012 at19.00 hours due to rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 driver and whether it resulted in causing death of the deceased/Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva ?

MVOP No.405/2017 4 ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what is the quantum and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claim petitioner, claim petitioner i.e., mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR and complaint in Crime

No.260/2012 of P.S Jadcherla, dated 30-08-2012, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report of Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of

PME of Ayelolla Shivakumar, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A6 is the photostat copy of permit of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703, Ex.A7 is the photostat copy of registration certificate of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A8 is the photostat copy of insurance policy cover note of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 and Ex.A9 is the original memorandum of marks sheet of SSC of Ayelolla Shivakumar. One of the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence of the accident is examined as PW.2.

7.On behalf of respondent No.2, Rws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 is marked.

8.Heard both sides and the records are perused.

9.Now, this court proceeds to evaluate the oral and documentary evidence so adduced by the parties.

10.Issue No.i) :-

The case of the claim petitioner is that due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 by the driver,

MVOP No.405/2017 5 the accident in question occurred in which the deceased Shiva died. On the other hand, the case of respondent No.2 is of total denial and that the the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 is not liable for any accident.

11.As stated earlier, Claim Petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and she got exhibited nine documents as Exs.A1 to A9. In her chief examination, claim petitioner reiterated the contents of the claim petition asserting that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 by the respondent no.1. During her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to due to negligence of driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-22-6302. During her cross- examination, she denied that the accident in question occurred due to negligence of her son and not due to the negligence of auto driver .

12.Coming to the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First Information Report along with complaint in Crime

No.260/2012 of P.S. Jadcherla. The said First Information Report (Ex.A1) was registered against driver of auto rickshaw as accused no.1, showing him as accused and driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME report and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of is MVI report shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto rickshaw and

Ex.A5 is certified copy of charge sheet filed by the police concerned in the above said crime. The above documents are relevant for deciding this issue.

Perusal of the above-mentioned documents go to show that Respondent No.2 herein was owner of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 and the driver

MVOP No.405/2017 6 of the auto arrayed as accused no.1 in the crime registered in connection with the accident in question and perusal of Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet would show that the investigating officer in the said crime had filed the charge sheet fastening the liability of the accident on the part of the driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703. Therefore, considering the above documents, this Tribunal holds that the claim petitioner could prove her case to the effect that accident had occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 , due to which the deceased died in the said accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claim petitioner.

13.Issue No.ii) :-

As per the settled principles of Law, three factors are to be determined, where the death of the deceased occurred in a Motor Vehicle Accident and those three aspects are I) Income of the deceased, ii) Age of the deceased and iii) Number of dependents of the deceased. Once, these factors are ascertained then, it will be just a mathematical calculations to arrive a just compensation.

14.As far as income of the deceased minor is concerned, the learned counsel for the claim petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High

Court Delhi in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s

Bhupan Paswan and Others reported in (2025) ACCi.C.R. 400 (Del) dated 24- 02-2025 and submitted that while assessing the income of the minor deceased in motor vehicle accident cases, the income shall be fixed basing on the

Minimum Wages applicable to a skilled labour/worker. He further argued that

MVOP No.405/2017 7 on such income 40% future prospects shall also be added. On the other hand the counsel for the Insurance company stated that Minimum Wages Act will not be applicable to the minors and he argued that the Judgment relied by the counsel for the claim petitioner is not applicable to this case.

15.This court has carefully perused the Judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner and perusal of it shows that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after referring to the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kajal V/s

Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and also a Judgment of the Apex court in Master Ayush V/s Branch Manager, Reliance General

Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, observed while calculating the income of a minor deceased, the Minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker shall be criteria.

16.To the similar affect is another Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in Rakesh Sharma @ Rakesh and Another V/s Ashok and others,

dated 04-03-2025 in which also the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi enunciated the

same principle that in case of calculating the income of a deceased minor

Minimum Wages Act applicable to a skilled labour at the relevant time shall be taken into account. As stated in the above two Judgments, the Hon’ble Delhi

High Court relied on the decisions of our Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, this court intends to apply the ratio of the cited Judgments to the case on hand.

17.As per Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages applicable to a skilled labour at the relevant period was Rs.242.36/-. Hence, this Tribunal intends to take a round figure of Rs.250/- per day, as the income of the deceased minor at

MVOP No.405/2017 8 the time of accident. Thus the total monthly income would be Rs.7500/- = [ Rs.250/- x 30 days ] and annual income comes to Rs.90,000/- = [ Rs.7500/- x 12]. On the said amount 40% future prospects should be added and 40% on

Rs.90,000/- comes to Rs.36,000/- = [Rs.90,000/- x 40%] in total the annual income of the minor deceased would have been Rs.1,26,000/- = [Rs.90,000/- +

Rs.36,000/-]. Out of the said amount, since the deceased was un-married and survived by a mother, who was dependent, 1/3rd should be deducted towards personal expenses and 1/3rd of Rs.1,26,000/- comes to Rs.42,000/- and if the same is deducted, annual income of the minor deceased would be Rs.84,000/- per annum = [ Rs.1,26,000/- - Rs.42,000/-].

18.Coming to the age of the deceased is concerned, as per Ex.A9 original memo of marks, the deceased completed matriculation and completed 15 years of age and he was about 15 years one month old at the time of accident.

Therefore, as per Smt.Sarla Verma and Other’s Judgment multiplier said group is “M-18”. Thus the total loss of dependency would be Rs.15,12,000/- = [Rs.84,000/- x 18].

19.Petitioner is also entitled for consortium. Petitioner being the mother of the deceased is entitled for filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- Apart from the above, petitioner is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total claim amount comes to

Rs.15,82,000/- = [Rs.15,124,000/- + Rs.70,000/-].

20.Thus, the petitioners are entitled compensation under the following heads:-

MVOP No.405/2017 9

Sl.Nature of the compensationAmount awarded in No.rupees

1.Loss of life, future earning power &Rs.15,12,000/- dependency

2.Loss of filial consortium for petitioner Rs.40,000/-

3.Loss of estateRs.15,000/-

4.For funeral expensesRs.15,000/- TOTAL Rs.15,82,000/-

21.The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount together with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

22.Isue No.iii) :-

In view of my findings on issue nos.i) and ii), the claim petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs & Eighty Two

Thousand) together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing of the compensation payable by respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

RESULT

In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed with costs by awarding compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs & Eighty Two Thousand), directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the claim petitioner with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of depositing of the compensation amount.

i)The respondent no.2 is directed to deposit awarded amount within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

MVOP No.405/2017 10 ii)On deposit of the compensation amount, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along with the component of interest accrued thereon and costs.

iii)The Advocate fee for the claim petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Five

Thousand).

iv)AS per the Order dated 7-11-2017, the petitioner shall pay the court fee

before obtaining the certified copy of Judgment and Decree on the awarded

amount.

v)The Office is directed to check and prepare decree, if theCourt fee is paid in accordance with the compensation awarded by this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade.I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 20th day of February, 2026.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:-

PW.1:Smt.C.Laxmamma PW.2:Mohammed Shujath Ali

For Respondents:-

RW.1: B.Chandradhar Reddy RW.2: K.Naresh Goud

Exhibits Marked.

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR and complaint in Crime No.260/2012 of P.S Jadcherla, dated 30-08-2012,

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report of Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME of Ayelolla Shivakumar,

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of MVI report,

MVOP No.405/2017 11

Ex.A5 is the certified copy of charge sheet,

Ex.A6 is the photostat copy of permit of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A7 is the photostat copy of registration certificate of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A8 is the photostat copy of insurance policy cover note of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703

Ex.A9 is the original memorandum of marks sheet of SSC of Ayelolla Shivakumar.

For Respondents:-

Es.B1 is copy of insurance policy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday, this 20th day of February, 2026

Present:SRI MOHD.AFROZ AKTHAR, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

M.V.O.P. No. 405 of 2017

BETWEEN :-

Chakali Laxmamma @ Ayelolla Laxmi @ VijayaW/o Late Chakali Narsimha @ Narsimulu, Age:35 Years,Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.2-49, Muchinthala Village,Shamshabad Mandal, presently residing at Indira Nagar,Jadcherla village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Claim Petitioner.

And

1. Mohammed Imtiyaz s/o Mohammed Mahbub Ali Age:Major, Owner of offending Autorickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703, R/o H.No.1-91, Gandhinagar, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Manger, Nort East Plaza, Beside BMW Show Room, Opposite RTA Office, Erram Manzil X road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

…..Respondents.

This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Haleem Advocate for Claim Petitioner and of Sri M.Jagannatha Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and of Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

O R D E R (AWARD)

1.This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, by the mother of the deceased

Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.08.2012 at Kaurampet village, Jadcherla Mandal.

MVOP No.405/2017 2

2.The averments of the claim petition, in brief, are that:-

(i)Claim Petitioner is mother of the deceased Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva and she is legal heir. On 29-08-2012, evening at 19.00 hours, the deceased

Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-22-X7703, from Kaurampet to Jadcherla and on the way at 19.00 hours, when the auto reached in the limits of Kaurampet Village, the driver of the said auto drove in high speed with rash and negligent manner and took turn to escape the opposite vehicle, as a result, Ayelolla Shivakumar @

Shiva fell down from the auto and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and on 30-08-2012, while undergoing treatment Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva died in Vasavi Hospital, Hyderabad.

(ii)It is further averred in the claim petition that Police, Jadcherla registered a case in Crime No.260/2012 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the Respondent No.1 herein.

(iii) It is further averred in the claim petition that deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, Had the deceased not met with the accident, the claimant would have been maintained properly for many more years. The sudden death of the deceased subjected the petitioner to mental agony.

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., auto rickshaw bearing

No.AP-22-X-7703. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the respondent nos.1 is owner and respondent no.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle on the date of accident, as such respondents 1 and 2 are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the claim petitioner together with interest and costs. Hence the petition.

MVOP No.405/2017 3

3.Though the notice was served, respondent no.1 did not choose to contest the claim petition and he remained ex-parte and as such, case against him was proceeded ex-parte.

4.Respondent No.2 filed counter, opposing the claim petition. It is inter- alia averred in the counter that no accident took place on the date so alleged and Respondent No.1 never drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 also denied the mode and manner of the accident, age, and earnings of the deceased. There is no denial in the counter that the crime vehicle was insured with it. It is further averred that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the same is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such the claim against this respondents is not maintainable. It is further averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Tractor, which caused the accident and the tractor had no valid insurance policy. The claim petitioner with the help of the owner, driver of the insured vehicle got involved the insured vehicle in the crime. Hence, the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5.On the basis of above pleadings and the material available on record, my learned predecessor-in-office had framed the following issues to be decided:

i) Whether the accident which occurred on the limits of Kaurampet Village, Jadcherla Mandal on 29-08-2012 at19.00 hours due to rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 driver and whether it resulted in causing death of the deceased/Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva ?

MVOP No.405/2017 4 ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what is the quantum and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claim petitioner, claim petitioner i.e., mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR and complaint in Crime

No.260/2012 of P.S Jadcherla, dated 30-08-2012, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report of Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of

PME of Ayelolla Shivakumar, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A6 is the photostat copy of permit of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703, Ex.A7 is the photostat copy of registration certificate of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A8 is the photostat copy of insurance policy cover note of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 and Ex.A9 is the original memorandum of marks sheet of SSC of Ayelolla Shivakumar. One of the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence of the accident is examined as PW.2.

7.On behalf of respondent No.2, Rws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 is marked.

8.Heard both sides and the records are perused.

9.Now, this court proceeds to evaluate the oral and documentary evidence so adduced by the parties.

10.Issue No.i) :-

The case of the claim petitioner is that due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 by the driver,

MVOP No.405/2017 5 the accident in question occurred in which the deceased Shiva died. On the other hand, the case of respondent No.2 is of total denial and that the the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 is not liable for any accident.

11.As stated earlier, Claim Petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and she got exhibited nine documents as Exs.A1 to A9. In her chief examination, claim petitioner reiterated the contents of the claim petition asserting that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 by the respondent no.1. During her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to due to negligence of driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-22-6302. During her cross- examination, she denied that the accident in question occurred due to negligence of her son and not due to the negligence of auto driver .

12.Coming to the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First Information Report along with complaint in Crime

No.260/2012 of P.S. Jadcherla. The said First Information Report (Ex.A1) was registered against driver of auto rickshaw as accused no.1, showing him as accused and driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME report and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of is MVI report shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto rickshaw and

Ex.A5 is certified copy of charge sheet filed by the police concerned in the above said crime. The above documents are relevant for deciding this issue.

Perusal of the above-mentioned documents go to show that Respondent No.2 herein was owner of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 and the driver

MVOP No.405/2017 6 of the auto arrayed as accused no.1 in the crime registered in connection with the accident in question and perusal of Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet would show that the investigating officer in the said crime had filed the charge sheet fastening the liability of the accident on the part of the driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703. Therefore, considering the above documents, this Tribunal holds that the claim petitioner could prove her case to the effect that accident had occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 , due to which the deceased died in the said accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claim petitioner.

13.Issue No.ii) :-

As per the settled principles of Law, three factors are to be determined, where the death of the deceased occurred in a Motor Vehicle Accident and those three aspects are I) Income of the deceased, ii) Age of the deceased and iii) Number of dependents of the deceased. Once, these factors are ascertained then, it will be just a mathematical calculations to arrive a just compensation.

14.As far as income of the deceased minor is concerned, the learned counsel for the claim petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High

Court Delhi in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s

Bhupan Paswan and Others reported in (2025) ACCi.C.R. 400 (Del) dated 24- 02-2025 and submitted that while assessing the income of the minor deceased in motor vehicle accident cases, the income shall be fixed basing on the

Minimum Wages applicable to a skilled labour/worker. He further argued that

MVOP No.405/2017 7 on such income 40% future prospects shall also be added. On the other hand the counsel for the Insurance company stated that Minimum Wages Act will not be applicable to the minors and he argued that the Judgment relied by the counsel for the claim petitioner is not applicable to this case.

15.This court has carefully perused the Judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner and perusal of it shows that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after referring to the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kajal V/s

Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and also a Judgment of the Apex court in Master Ayush V/s Branch Manager, Reliance General

Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, observed while calculating the income of a minor deceased, the Minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker shall be criteria.

16.To the similar affect is another Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in Rakesh Sharma @ Rakesh and Another V/s Ashok and others,

dated 04-03-2025 in which also the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi enunciated the

same principle that in case of calculating the income of a deceased minor

Minimum Wages Act applicable to a skilled labour at the relevant time shall be taken into account. As stated in the above two Judgments, the Hon’ble Delhi

High Court relied on the decisions of our Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, this court intends to apply the ratio of the cited Judgments to the case on hand.

17.As per Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages applicable to a skilled labour at the relevant period was Rs.242.36/-. Hence, this Tribunal intends to take a round figure of Rs.250/- per day, as the income of the deceased minor at

MVOP No.405/2017 8 the time of accident. Thus the total monthly income would be Rs.7500/- = [ Rs.250/- x 30 days ] and annual income comes to Rs.90,000/- = [ Rs.7500/- x 12]. On the said amount 40% future prospects should be added and 40% on

Rs.90,000/- comes to Rs.36,000/- = [Rs.90,000/- x 40%] in total the annual income of the minor deceased would have been Rs.1,26,000/- = [Rs.90,000/- +

Rs.36,000/-]. Out of the said amount, since the deceased was un-married and survived by a mother, who was dependent, 1/3rd should be deducted towards personal expenses and 1/3rd of Rs.1,26,000/- comes to Rs.42,000/- and if the same is deducted, annual income of the minor deceased would be Rs.84,000/- per annum = [ Rs.1,26,000/- - Rs.42,000/-].

18.Coming to the age of the deceased is concerned, as per Ex.A9 original memo of marks, the deceased completed matriculation and completed 15 years of age and he was about 15 years one month old at the time of accident.

Therefore, as per Smt.Sarla Verma and Other’s Judgment multiplier said group is “M-18”. Thus the total loss of dependency would be Rs.15,12,000/- = [Rs.84,000/- x 18].

19.Petitioner is also entitled for consortium. Petitioner being the mother of the deceased is entitled for filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- Apart from the above, petitioner is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total claim amount comes to

Rs.15,82,000/- = [Rs.15,124,000/- + Rs.70,000/-].

20.Thus, the petitioners are entitled compensation under the following heads:-

MVOP No.405/2017 9

Sl.Nature of the compensationAmount awarded in No.rupees

1.Loss of life, future earning power &Rs.15,12,000/- dependency

2.Loss of filial consortium for petitioner Rs.40,000/-

3.Loss of estateRs.15,000/-

4.For funeral expensesRs.15,000/- TOTAL Rs.15,82,000/-

21.The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount together with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

22.Isue No.iii) :-

In view of my findings on issue nos.i) and ii), the claim petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs & Eighty Two

Thousand) together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing of the compensation payable by respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

RESULT

In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed with costs by awarding compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs & Eighty Two Thousand), directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the claim petitioner with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of depositing of the compensation amount.

i)The respondent no.2 is directed to deposit awarded amount within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

MVOP No.405/2017 10 ii)On deposit of the compensation amount, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along with the component of interest accrued thereon and costs.

iii)The Advocate fee for the claim petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Five

Thousand).

iv)AS per the Order dated 7-11-2017, the petitioner shall pay the court fee

before obtaining the certified copy of Judgment and Decree on the awarded

amount.

v)The Office is directed to check and prepare decree, if theCourt fee is paid in accordance with the compensation awarded by this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade.I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 20th day of February, 2026.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:-

PW.1:Smt.C.Laxmamma PW.2:Mohammed Shujath Ali

For Respondents:-

RW.1: B.Chandradhar Reddy RW.2: K.Naresh Goud

Exhibits Marked.

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR and complaint in Crime No.260/2012 of P.S Jadcherla, dated 30-08-2012,

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report of Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME of Ayelolla Shivakumar,

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of MVI report,

MVOP No.405/2017 11

Ex.A5 is the certified copy of charge sheet,

Ex.A6 is the photostat copy of permit of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A7 is the photostat copy of registration certificate of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A8 is the photostat copy of insurance policy cover note of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703

Ex.A9 is the original memorandum of marks sheet of SSC of Ayelolla Shivakumar.

For Respondents:-

Es.B1 is copy of insurance policy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday, this 20th day of February, 2026

Present:SRI MOHD.AFROZ AKTHAR, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

M.V.O.P. No. 405 of 2017

BETWEEN :-

Chakali Laxmamma @ Ayelolla Laxmi @ VijayaW/o Late Chakali Narsimha @ Narsimulu, Age:35 Years,Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.2-49, Muchinthala Village,Shamshabad Mandal, presently residing at Indira Nagar,Jadcherla village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Claim Petitioner.

And

1. Mohammed Imtiyaz s/o Mohammed Mahbub Ali Age:Major, Owner of offending Autorickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703, R/o H.No.1-91, Gandhinagar, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Manger, Nort East Plaza, Beside BMW Show Room, Opposite RTA Office, Erram Manzil X road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

…..Respondents.

This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Haleem Advocate for Claim Petitioner and of Sri M.Jagannatha Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and of Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

O R D E R (AWARD)

1.This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, by the mother of the deceased

Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.08.2012 at Kaurampet village, Jadcherla Mandal.

MVOP No.405/2017 2

2.The averments of the claim petition, in brief, are that:-

(i)Claim Petitioner is mother of the deceased Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva and she is legal heir. On 29-08-2012, evening at 19.00 hours, the deceased

Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-22-X7703, from Kaurampet to Jadcherla and on the way at 19.00 hours, when the auto reached in the limits of Kaurampet Village, the driver of the said auto drove in high speed with rash and negligent manner and took turn to escape the opposite vehicle, as a result, Ayelolla Shivakumar @

Shiva fell down from the auto and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and on 30-08-2012, while undergoing treatment Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva died in Vasavi Hospital, Hyderabad.

(ii)It is further averred in the claim petition that Police, Jadcherla registered a case in Crime No.260/2012 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the Respondent No.1 herein.

(iii) It is further averred in the claim petition that deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, Had the deceased not met with the accident, the claimant would have been maintained properly for many more years. The sudden death of the deceased subjected the petitioner to mental agony.

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., auto rickshaw bearing

No.AP-22-X-7703. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the respondent nos.1 is owner and respondent no.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle on the date of accident, as such respondents 1 and 2 are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the claim petitioner together with interest and costs. Hence the petition.

MVOP No.405/2017 3

3.Though the notice was served, respondent no.1 did not choose to contest the claim petition and he remained ex-parte and as such, case against him was proceeded ex-parte.

4.Respondent No.2 filed counter, opposing the claim petition. It is inter- alia averred in the counter that no accident took place on the date so alleged and Respondent No.1 never drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 also denied the mode and manner of the accident, age, and earnings of the deceased. There is no denial in the counter that the crime vehicle was insured with it. It is further averred that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the same is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such the claim against this respondents is not maintainable. It is further averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Tractor, which caused the accident and the tractor had no valid insurance policy. The claim petitioner with the help of the owner, driver of the insured vehicle got involved the insured vehicle in the crime. Hence, the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5.On the basis of above pleadings and the material available on record, my learned predecessor-in-office had framed the following issues to be decided:

i) Whether the accident which occurred on the limits of Kaurampet Village, Jadcherla Mandal on 29-08-2012 at19.00 hours due to rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 driver and whether it resulted in causing death of the deceased/Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva ?

MVOP No.405/2017 4 ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what is the quantum and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claim petitioner, claim petitioner i.e., mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR and complaint in Crime

No.260/2012 of P.S Jadcherla, dated 30-08-2012, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report of Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of

PME of Ayelolla Shivakumar, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A6 is the photostat copy of permit of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703, Ex.A7 is the photostat copy of registration certificate of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A8 is the photostat copy of insurance policy cover note of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 and Ex.A9 is the original memorandum of marks sheet of SSC of Ayelolla Shivakumar. One of the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence of the accident is examined as PW.2.

7.On behalf of respondent No.2, Rws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 is marked.

8.Heard both sides and the records are perused.

9.Now, this court proceeds to evaluate the oral and documentary evidence so adduced by the parties.

10.Issue No.i) :-

The case of the claim petitioner is that due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 by the driver,

MVOP No.405/2017 5 the accident in question occurred in which the deceased Shiva died. On the other hand, the case of respondent No.2 is of total denial and that the the driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 is not liable for any accident.

11.As stated earlier, Claim Petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and she got exhibited nine documents as Exs.A1 to A9. In her chief examination, claim petitioner reiterated the contents of the claim petition asserting that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 by the respondent no.1. During her cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to due to negligence of driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-22-6302. During her cross- examination, she denied that the accident in question occurred due to negligence of her son and not due to the negligence of auto driver .

12.Coming to the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First Information Report along with complaint in Crime

No.260/2012 of P.S. Jadcherla. The said First Information Report (Ex.A1) was registered against driver of auto rickshaw as accused no.1, showing him as accused and driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME report and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of is MVI report shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto rickshaw and

Ex.A5 is certified copy of charge sheet filed by the police concerned in the above said crime. The above documents are relevant for deciding this issue.

Perusal of the above-mentioned documents go to show that Respondent No.2 herein was owner of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 and the driver

MVOP No.405/2017 6 of the auto arrayed as accused no.1 in the crime registered in connection with the accident in question and perusal of Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet would show that the investigating officer in the said crime had filed the charge sheet fastening the liability of the accident on the part of the driving of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703. Therefore, considering the above documents, this Tribunal holds that the claim petitioner could prove her case to the effect that accident had occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703 , due to which the deceased died in the said accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claim petitioner.

13.Issue No.ii) :-

As per the settled principles of Law, three factors are to be determined, where the death of the deceased occurred in a Motor Vehicle Accident and those three aspects are I) Income of the deceased, ii) Age of the deceased and iii) Number of dependents of the deceased. Once, these factors are ascertained then, it will be just a mathematical calculations to arrive a just compensation.

14.As far as income of the deceased minor is concerned, the learned counsel for the claim petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High

Court Delhi in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s

Bhupan Paswan and Others reported in (2025) ACCi.C.R. 400 (Del) dated 24- 02-2025 and submitted that while assessing the income of the minor deceased in motor vehicle accident cases, the income shall be fixed basing on the

Minimum Wages applicable to a skilled labour/worker. He further argued that

MVOP No.405/2017 7 on such income 40% future prospects shall also be added. On the other hand the counsel for the Insurance company stated that Minimum Wages Act will not be applicable to the minors and he argued that the Judgment relied by the counsel for the claim petitioner is not applicable to this case.

15.This court has carefully perused the Judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner and perusal of it shows that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after referring to the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kajal V/s

Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and also a Judgment of the Apex court in Master Ayush V/s Branch Manager, Reliance General

Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, observed while calculating the income of a minor deceased, the Minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker shall be criteria.

16.To the similar affect is another Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in Rakesh Sharma @ Rakesh and Another V/s Ashok and others,

dated 04-03-2025 in which also the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi enunciated the

same principle that in case of calculating the income of a deceased minor

Minimum Wages Act applicable to a skilled labour at the relevant time shall be taken into account. As stated in the above two Judgments, the Hon’ble Delhi

High Court relied on the decisions of our Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, this court intends to apply the ratio of the cited Judgments to the case on hand.

17.As per Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages applicable to a skilled labour at the relevant period was Rs.242.36/-. Hence, this Tribunal intends to take a round figure of Rs.250/- per day, as the income of the deceased minor at

MVOP No.405/2017 8 the time of accident. Thus the total monthly income would be Rs.7500/- = [ Rs.250/- x 30 days ] and annual income comes to Rs.90,000/- = [ Rs.7500/- x 12]. On the said amount 40% future prospects should be added and 40% on

Rs.90,000/- comes to Rs.36,000/- = [Rs.90,000/- x 40%] in total the annual income of the minor deceased would have been Rs.1,26,000/- = [Rs.90,000/- +

Rs.36,000/-]. Out of the said amount, since the deceased was un-married and survived by a mother, who was dependent, 1/3rd should be deducted towards personal expenses and 1/3rd of Rs.1,26,000/- comes to Rs.42,000/- and if the same is deducted, annual income of the minor deceased would be Rs.84,000/- per annum = [ Rs.1,26,000/- - Rs.42,000/-].

18.Coming to the age of the deceased is concerned, as per Ex.A9 original memo of marks, the deceased completed matriculation and completed 15 years of age and he was about 15 years one month old at the time of accident.

Therefore, as per Smt.Sarla Verma and Other’s Judgment multiplier said group is “M-18”. Thus the total loss of dependency would be Rs.15,12,000/- = [Rs.84,000/- x 18].

19.Petitioner is also entitled for consortium. Petitioner being the mother of the deceased is entitled for filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- Apart from the above, petitioner is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total claim amount comes to

Rs.15,82,000/- = [Rs.15,124,000/- + Rs.70,000/-].

20.Thus, the petitioners are entitled compensation under the following heads:-

MVOP No.405/2017 9

Sl.Nature of the compensationAmount awarded in No.rupees

1.Loss of life, future earning power &Rs.15,12,000/- dependency

2.Loss of filial consortium for petitioner Rs.40,000/-

3.Loss of estateRs.15,000/-

4.For funeral expensesRs.15,000/- TOTAL Rs.15,82,000/-

21.The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount together with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

22.Isue No.iii) :-

In view of my findings on issue nos.i) and ii), the claim petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs & Eighty Two

Thousand) together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing of the compensation payable by respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

RESULT

In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed with costs by awarding compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs & Eighty Two Thousand), directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the claim petitioner with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of depositing of the compensation amount.

i)The respondent no.2 is directed to deposit awarded amount within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

MVOP No.405/2017 10 ii)On deposit of the compensation amount, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along with the component of interest accrued thereon and costs.

iii)The Advocate fee for the claim petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Five

Thousand).

iv)AS per the Order dated 7-11-2017, the petitioner shall pay the court fee

before obtaining the certified copy of Judgment and Decree on the awarded

amount.

v)The Office is directed to check and prepare decree, if theCourt fee is paid in accordance with the compensation awarded by this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade.I, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 20th day of February, 2026.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:-

PW.1:Smt.C.Laxmamma PW.2:Mohammed Shujath Ali

For Respondents:-

RW.1: B.Chandradhar Reddy RW.2: K.Naresh Goud

Exhibits Marked.

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR and complaint in Crime No.260/2012 of P.S Jadcherla, dated 30-08-2012,

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report of Ayelolla Shivakumar @ Shiva, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of PME of Ayelolla Shivakumar,

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of MVI report,

MVOP No.405/2017 11

Ex.A5 is the certified copy of charge sheet,

Ex.A6 is the photostat copy of permit of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A7 is the photostat copy of registration certificate of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22X-7703,

Ex.A8 is the photostat copy of insurance policy cover note of offending auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-22-X-7703

Ex.A9 is the original memorandum of marks sheet of SSC of Ayelolla Shivakumar.

For Respondents:-

Es.B1 is copy of insurance policy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District

Judge, Mahabubnagar.