APHC010195912006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the sixteenth day of April, The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A. Between: Challa Chaitanya Kishore K.R.M. Marine Exports Ltd., Counsel for the appellant Ancha Panduranga Rao Counsel for the respondent 1. Nil 2. Kesavi Kumar Nemala 3. Nil 4. Kotha Rama Mohan The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the sixteenth day of April, two thousand and twenty Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A. No: 654 of 2006 Challa Chaitanya Kishore ...Appellant and K.R.M. Marine Exports Ltd., and others ...Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Ancha Panduranga Rao respondents: Kesavi Kumar Nemala Kotha Rama Mohan The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] two thousand and twenty six Appellant Respondents 2 M.A.C.M.A. No.654 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and the award dated 23.11.2005 in M.V.O.P. No. 607 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- District Judge, Guntur. 2. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The parents of the claimant, while going in a bus bearing No. AP 7 T 4778 on 20.10.2000 to travel from Tirupati to Guntur, the bus was hit by a lorry bearing No. AP 37 U 8317, as a result of which, both the parents of the claimant, the driver of the bus and some others died on the spot and the others sustained injuries. On the complaint given by the driver of the lorry, a case was registered in Crime No. 258 of 2000 against the driver of the bus under Sections 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. 4. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of his mother in M.V.O.P. No. 607 of 2001 alleging that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, but taking advantage of the death of the driver of the bus, he had lodged complaint against the driver of the bus. 5. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry. The respondent No.3 is the owner and the respondent No.4 is the insurer of the bus. 6. The respondent No.1 appeared through advocate, but has not filed written statement, nor has he led any evidence. The respondent No.3 remained ex parte. 7. The respondents Nos. 2 and 4 contested the claim petition. 3 M.A.C.M.A. No.654 of 2006 8. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A3 were marked. Ex. A1: Certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No. 258/2000 of Guntur Taluk Police Station. Ex. A2: Certified copy of inquest report. Ex. A3: Post-mortem certificate. 9. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1-R. Adi Seshu was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. Ex. B.1 : C.C. of policy scheduled for the vehicle of AP 7T 4778, Ashok Leyland bus. Ex. B.2 : C.C. of final report in Crime No.258 of 2000. 10. The Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Thus, the petition against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 was dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/- each to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 payable by the claimant. 11. Considering the value of the services of the mother at Rs.15,000/- p.a., excluding Rs.5,000/- towards her personal expenses and Rs.5000/- for her services to her husband (who died in the same accident), support to the claimant was decided at Rs.5,000/- p.a. Considering the age of the mother of the claimant at 42 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier ‘15’ and calculated the amount of loss of services as Rs.75,000/- (Rs.5,000/- X 15). In addition thereto, Rs.5,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, in total, an amount of Rs.90,000/- was granted as compensation, apart from proportionate costs and interest on the amount of compensation @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and also advocate fee of Rs.500/-. 4 M.A.C.M.A. No.654 of 2006 12. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the claimant preferred this appeal contending that the method of calculating the amount of compensation is not inconformity with the principles of law and that the Tribunal erred in fixing the value of the services of the mother of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- p.a. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to award compensation of any amount for loss of estate, but it is a common practice to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- under that head. It is further contended that she would have participated in agricultural operations and the value of her services would be more than what was decided by the Tribunal. The rate of interest was also sought to be enhanced from 6% to 12% p.a. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Sri B. Maharshi Reddy, learned counsel, submitted that the Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of compensation as stated in the grounds of appeal. 14. Though notices were served on the respondents Nos.1 and 3, no appearance has been made. There is no representation for the respondent No.4 who appeared through advocate before this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there is no evidence led by the claimant regarding the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry, since that claimant alone was examined as a witness and no other eye witness to the accident was examined. She further submitted that the officer of the respondent No.2 was examined as R.W.1 and copy of final report making the driver of the bus as an accused was filed before the Tribunal as Ex. B.2 in Cr.No.258 of 2000. Therefore, she requested not to allow appeal against the respondent No. 2. 15. As rightly contended by the appellant, the Tribunal failed to award any amount of compensation for loss of estate. By then, it is common practice to award Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Since the claimant lost both the parents, his loss cannot be compensated in terms of money. The deceased being mother, evaluating her services in the form 5 M.A.C.M.A. No.654 of 2006 of money is only an attempt but cannot be ever actual determination. Therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded towards loss of estate. 16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, after the value of services considering at Rs.15,000/- p.a., the Tribunal erred in deducting Rs.5,000/- towards the services to her husband i.e., the father of the claimant who also died in the same accident, since there is no possibility of consuming her services by her husband, if she were alive. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken the value of her services at Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, additional amount of Rs.75,000/- is required to be awarded. 17. The Tribunal awarded adequate amount of compensation under the other heads. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.90,000/-. It is settled law that irrespective of the amount of compensation claimed, the Tribunal has to grant just and reasonable amount of compensation. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. 18. Regarding rate of interest, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the award. 19. Thus, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout against the respondents Nos.3 and 4 by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/-, subject to payment of court fee on Rs.30,000/. The rest of the award remains intact. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 16.04.2026 PNV