Page 1 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT: NALGONDA
Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026
PRESENT: SRI P. VASANTH, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge,
NALGONDA.
M.V.O.P. NO. 393 of 2022
BETWEEN:
1.Therati Eswaramma, S/o. Late Ramachandru, Aged 50 years, Occ: Household,
2.Therati Avilamallu, S/o. Late Ramachandru, Aged 33 years, Occ: Coolie,
3.Therati Lingaiah, S/o. Late Ramachandru, Aged 28 years, Occ: Coolie,
All are R/o. Thonda Village, Thirumalagiri Mandal of Suryapet District.
4.Seela Renuka, W/o. Komaravalli, Aged 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Wardhamanukota Village of Jajireddygudem Mandal of Suryapet District. All are presently residing at Gandhi Nagar locality of Nalgonda Town, District.
… Petitioners
AND
1.Ch. Sudhershan, S/o. Roshaiah, Aged 39 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.M-10/1, Kakatiya Nagar, Habsiguda, Ranga Reddy District of Telangana State, India PIN Code No.507 115 (Rider of the motorcycle bearing No.TS-29-G-7496).
2.Eranti Yakaswamy, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-84/1, Thirumalagiri Village and Mandal of Suryapet District, Telangana State, India PIN Code No.508 223 (Owner of the motorcycle bearing No.TS-29-G-7496).
Page 2 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
3.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager in Legal, Branch Office, R/o. North East Plaza, Beside BWM Show Room, Opposite R.T.A. Office, Kairathabad, Hyderabad City and District of Telangana State, India, Pin Code No.500034. (Policy No.OG-20-1813-1826-00003552 valid from 25.10.2019 to 24.10.2024) … Respondents
This petition is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri T. Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners; Sri G. Sravan Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.3; and the respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte; upon perusing the record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Tribunal made the following:
ORDER
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners No.1 to 4 against respondents
No.1 to 3 u/S.166 r/w 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act” for brevity) claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization for the accidental death of one Thotakura
Ramachandru (hereinafter referred to as “deceased” for short) in a motor accident. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the sons, while petitioner No.4 is the married daughter of the deceased. On the other hand, respondent No.1 is the bike rider, who caused the accident, respondent
No.2 is the owner of the bike and respondent No.3 is the insurance company with which the offending bike was insured.
Page 3 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
2. The case of the claimants as averred in the claim petition is briefly stated as under:
On 29.09.2022, around 06.00 p.m., the deceased namely Thotakura
Ramachandru was returning home on foot walking on the left side of the road and when he reached S.C. colony of Thonda Village, around 06.30 p.m., a rider of a motorcycle bearing No.TS-29-G-7496 came from Thorrur (V) and heading towards Thirumalagiri (V); the rider came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, thereby hitting the deceased from the rear side. Under the impact of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road sustaining grievous head injury, blood was oozing from the nose and mouth, spinal cord was fractured and there were multiple injuries and fractures all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to a hospital at
Thirumalagiri, but, he breathed his last en route to the hospital. The dead body was shifted to Government Hospital at Thungathurthy, where the duty doctors conducted autopsy over the dead body. Thus, the accident occurred due to negligent riding of the bike bearing No.TS-29-G-7496 by respondent
No.1.
The claimants incurred expenses of Rs.10,000/- towards transport chargesfor shifting the deceased to hospital and their home. The claimants incurred expenses of Rs.50,000/- for the funeral.
Page 4 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
Receiving the complaint, Police, Thirumalagiri registered a case in crime No.147 of 2022 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1.
The deceased was hale and healthy, aged 54 years, doing agriculture and also rearing sheep thereby earning a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per annum from the aforesaid sources and contribute the same for the welfare and the maintenance of the petitioners. Owing to the sudden accidental demise of the deceased, his wife and children have been deprived of the source of their survival. Hence, the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- under all the heads against the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
3.On receipt of notice, issued by the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 2 received the notice, but remained ex parte, while respondent No.3/insurance company contested the O.P. by filing the counter and adducing the evidence.
Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition, occupation, income, mode and manner of the accident, age of the deceased and so on. It is averred that the claim is exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal:
Page 5 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
1. Whether the deceased Therati Ramachandru died, due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.TS-29-G-7496?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
5.During the course of enquiry, petitioners examined claimant No.2 as
PW.1 and PW.2 has been examined as an eyewitness to the accident. Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, respondent No.3/insurance company examined its Legal Manager as RW.1, examined the rider of the bike as RW.2, examined the owner of bike as
RW.3 and examined Junior Assistant, RTA office as RW.4. Respondent
No.3/insurance company got marked Exs.R1 to R5. The details of exhibits shall be noted at the Appendix of Evidence.
6.After conclusion of the enquiry, the arguments were heard.
7.ISSUE No.1
Whether the deceased Therati Ramachandru died, due to
rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing
No.TS-29-G-7496?
To answer this issue, the pertinent documents are Ex.P1/certified copy of FIR and Ex.P7/certified copy of charge sheet. Point to be noted is that the
Page 6 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
very name of respondent No.1 bike rider has figured in the column pertaining to the accused and he was charged with the offence under Section 304-A of IPC in accordance with the contents of the complaint. In the charge sheet it is categorically noted that on 29.09.2022, at 18.30 hours, the deceased Ramachandru was returning home on foot after grazing the sheep and when he reached S.C. colony, the accused came from behind on his bike bearing No. TS-29-G-7496 in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed from Thorrur side and dashed the deceased from the read side thereby causing bleeding injuries, head and spinal cord. Thedeceased died on his way to hospital. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 herein is tried for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
The above point is more than sufficient to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the bike bearing No. TS-29-
G-7496 by respondent No.1. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
8.ISSUE No.2
Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so,
to what amount and from whom?
The chief-examination affidavit of PW.1 is the virtual reiteration of the contents of the claim petition. He testified, in the cross-examination, that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are working as coolies, while petitioner No.4 has got
Page 7 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
married and she is living with her husband. The rest of the cross- examination is perfunctory in nature and no infirmityis elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1.
PW.2 graphicallypresented as eyewitness account by deposing that on 29.09.2022, around 06.30 p.m., while he was waitingin front of the house of one Ch. Narsamma, he witnessed the deceased returning from his farmland to go to his house by walking on the extreme left side of the road and meanwhile, a motorcycle bearing No.TS-29-G-7496 came from Thorrur side and heading towards Tirumalagiri side and the said two wheeler came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said Ramachandru from behind; he sustained grievous injuries, but he died on his way to hospital. In the cross-examination, PW.2 stood his ground and stated that police examined and recorded his statement at the place of accident on the same day; he reiterated that at the time of accident, the deceased was going on foot on the road side. Except putting routine suggestions, nothing incredible has been elicited in the cross-examination of this crucial witness.
RW.1 is the Legal Manager of respondent No.3/insurance company through whom Exs.R1 to R3 have been marked. He admitted it to be true that Ex.R1/policy was in force as on the date of the accident; the deceased
Page 8 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
was third party to the insurance company; Ex.P5/certified copy of M.V.I report shows that the rider of offending bike was possessing the DL at the time of accident. He admitted it to be truethat the offence under Section 181 of M.V.Act is not charged against the respondent No.1.
RW.2 is the accused, who committed the accident. RW.2 is watchman and he stated that the DL shown in Ex.P5 belongs to him. It shows that the respondent No.1 had borrowed the bike from respondent No.2. He admitted it to be truethat he has been issued Non-transport LMV DL.
RW.3 is the owner of the offending bike and who stated in the cross- examination that on the date of the accident, the respondent No.1 had borrowed his bike.
RW.4 is the Junior Assistant, RTA, Uppal. He produced Ex.R5/Extract of DL of R1. He would stated that as per Ex.R5, the license holder is respondent No.1 who was authorised to drive LMV Non- Transport vehicle. He stated that the license holder is authorised to ride a two wheeler as per Ex.R5. Only contra suggestions is given to this witness that the DL holder is authorised to ride even a two wheeler, but he denied such suggestion.
The principle ground on which the respondent No.3 opposed the claim petition is that admittedly charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the
Page 9 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
offending vehicle for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and the main grievance ventilated by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the driving license of respondent No.1 is issued to drive LMV (Light Motor
Vehicle Non-Transport), whereas he rode the bike and caused the accident.
He would further amplify his submission by stating that for the motorcycle, the RTA issues the license under “MCWG” (Motorcycle with Gear) and hence, it is apparent that the respondent No.1 has committed the breach of the insurance policy and hence, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation.
There is every force in the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 since under M.V. Act, 1988 under Section 10(2), lists distinct classes for driving license including; Motorcycle without gear;
Motorcycle with gear; and LMV; Separately. Hence, LMV license holder cannot ride a motorcycle without possessing MCWG license. Thus, there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, the provision of “Pay and Recovery” can be invoked in these types of cases.
Admittedly, insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident, and as such, the petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation.
Page 10 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
9.ISSUE No.3
To what relief?
Coming to the assessment of the compensation, to establish the financial position of the deceased, Exs.P8 and P9 (pattadar passbooks and pahanies) have been filed which demonstrated that he was holding Ac.7.37 gts. Furthermore, in the inquest panchanama his occupation is noted as a “shepherd”. Hence, he had income not only from the land, but also through the sheep.
Coming to the quantifying the amount of compensation, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.20,000/-. For the sake of clarity, the compensation is quantified as under:
i.Income of the deceased (Rs.20,000/- p.m. XRs.2,40,000/- per annum 12 months) ii.Future Prospects at 10% of (i)Rs.24,000/- iii.Total IncomeRs.2,64,000/- iv.Deduction towards personal and livingRs.66,000/- (1/4th of expensestotal income) v.Multiplier9 (as per the age of the deceased i.e.,56 years as per PME) vi.Loss of future incomeRs.17,82,000/- (i.e. Rs.2,64,000/- (-) Rs.66,000/-= Rs.1,98,000/- x 9 = Rs.17,82,000/- Total:Rs.17,82,000/-
Page 11 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
vii.Loss of ConsortiumRs.40,000/- viii.Funeral expensesRs.15,000/- ixLoss of estateRs.15,000/- Total: Rs.18,52,000/-
10.In the result, the claim petition is allowed with costs thereby awarding compensation of Rs.18,52,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Two
Thousand only) to the petitioners payable by the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realisation.
Out of the compensation allowed, the petitioner No.1 is entitled to a share of Rs.8,52,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest; the petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled to a share of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) each and the petitioner
No.4 is entitled to a share of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only).
The respondents shall deposit the total compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest within Thirty days from the date of this award and upon such deposit, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,52,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest and balance of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Page 12 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
Lakhs only) shall be kept in fixed deposit with any nationalized bank for a period of Five years.
The petitioners No.2 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares amount.
The fee of the learned counsel for the petitioners is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
The petitioners claimed Court fee exemption and hence, no decree shall be prepared unless the petitioners pay the Court fee on the quantum of compensation in terms of this award.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-
CHAIRMAN
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
-CUM-(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE)
NALGONDA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS
PW.1 Therati AvilamalluRW.1 : B. Chandradhar Reddy
PW.2 Yellemla Bala RajuRW.2 : Ch.Sudarshan
RW.3 : E. Yakaswamy
RW.4 : M. Amrutha Raj
Page 13 of 13 MV OP No.393 of 2022
Dated 12 th day of May, 2026
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS
Ex.P1Certified copy of FIR along with complaint dated 30.09.2022 in Cr.No.147 of 2022 of P.S. Thirumalagiri of Suryapet District.
Ex.P2Certified copy of crime detail form along with sketch map.
Ex.P3Certified copy of inquest report of the deceased Therati Rama Chandru.
Ex.P4Certified copy of post mortem examination report of the deceased Therati Ramachandru.
Ex.P5Certified copy of M.V.I. report.
Ex.P6Certified copy of Form No.54.
Ex.P7Certified copy of charge sheet.
Ex.P8Attested copy of pattedar passbook belongs to Therati Ramachandru.
Ex.P9Certified copy of pahanies issues by Nayab Tahsildar of Thirumalagiri Mandal of Suryapet District.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT No.3
Ex.R1True copy of insurance policy with terms and conditions.
Ex.R2Office copy of registered letter, dated 21.12.2022 issued to owner/respondent No.2.
Ex.R3Postal receipt related to Ex.R2.
Ex.R4Authorisation letter.
Ex.R5Driving license extract of respondent No.1.
Sd/-
CHAIRMAN
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
-CUM-(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE)
NALGONDA
//True copy//
CHAIRMAN
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE)
NALGONDA