APHC010374892006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1758/2006 Between: 1. MALLA SIVAMMA & 3 ORS., W/O.CHINA LAKSHAMAIAH HOUSEHOLD R/O. NALLAGUNTA, OPP: TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, GUNTUR 2. MALLA MASTHANAMMA, D/O.CHINA LAKSHAMAIAH R/O. NALLAGUNTA, OPP: TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, GUNTUR (APPLTS. 2 TO 4 BEING MINORS REP., BY THEIR MOTHER AND 3. MALLA SUJATHA, D/O.CHINA LAKSHAMAIAH R/O. NALLAGUNTA, OPP: TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, GUNTUR (APPLTS. 2 TO 4 BEING MINORS REP., BY THEIR MOTHER AND 4. MALLA VENKATA MOHAN, D/O.CHINA LAKSHAMAIAH R/O. NALLAGUNTA, OPP: TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, GUNTUR (APPLTS. 2 TO 4 BEING MINORS REP., BY THEIR MOTHER AND ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. P KRISHNA AND ANR, SON BALAIAH LORRY OWNER 2 RO DOOR NO 219 BESIDES KANAKADURGA INDUSTRIES OPP TO NEW MIRCHI YARD G T ROAD GUNTUR OWNER OF LORRY NO.AIV 6161 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, ARUNDALPET, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Counsel for the Appellant(S): B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P BHANU PRAKASH 2. VUPPALAPATI SRINIVAS RAJU The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 06.06.20061 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Guntur2, in M.V.O.P.No.540 of 20033. 1hereinafter called as „Impugned award‟ 2 hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟ 3 hereinafter called as „Claim petition‟ 3 2. The appellants, who are wife and children of one China Lakshmiah4, are the claimants before the Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the impugned award, they preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement thereof. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AIV 61615 respectively. 3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: a. On 17.06.2003 at about 06.30 a.m., while the deceased proceeding from Ramya Cold Storage to Mirch Yard, when he reached by-pass road between Lalpuram and Mirchyard Centre at Guntur, the driver of the crime lorry driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, resulted the deceased died on the spot. The appellants being legal representatives of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the claim petition. 4hereinafter called as „deceased‟ 5 hereinafter referred as „crime lorry‟ 4 4. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime lorry in causing the incident; that the driver of the crime lorry is not having valid driving license to drive the same by the date of incident; that the crime lorry is not having valid permit and fitness certificate, thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. During enquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1to 4wereexamined and Exs.A.1 to A.6wereexhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2,its official was examined as R.W.1 and EXs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry and that the Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the date of incident. Accordingly, a sum of ₹2,64,800/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants, together with interest at the rate 5 of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, payable by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement thereof. 7. Heard Sri B.Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/claimants and Sri V.Srinivas Raju, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer. 8. It is the principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of „18‟ instead of „17‟ for a person aged between 25 and 30 years and thereby committed an error in calculating the compensation payable to the claimants under the head of loss of dependency. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.60/- per day instead of Rs.80/- per day, without taking into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the Government for a daily wage labourer. It is also submitted that the Tribunal failed to award any amount under the head of loss of estate. Therefore, according to 6 the learned counsel, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of the material available on record, rightly calculated the compensation payable to the claimants. It is contended that, in the absence of any document proving the exact age of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly determined the age of the deceased as 30 years based on Ex.A.2-Inquest Report and Ex.A.3-Post-mortem Report and accordingly applied the multiplier of „17‟. It is further submitted that no valid grounds have been urged for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the present appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 10. Now, the point that arises for determination is; “Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation under the head of pain and suffering, if so, to what amount?” 11. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident, involvement of the crime lorry in the incident, rash and 7 negligent driving of the crime lorry in causing the incident and that no appeal was preferred by the owner and insurer against the findings of the Tribunal. 12. Except Exs.A.2 and A.3, namely the Inquest Report and Post-mortem Report, no material was placed on record to establish the actual age of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal, by considering the said documents, rightly determined the age of the deceased as 30 years as on the date of the accident. However, admittedly, as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier applicable to a person aged between 25 and 30 years is „18‟. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of „17‟ instead of „18‟ while calculating the compensation payable to the claimants under the head of loss of dependency. 13. It is also not in controversy that no substantial oral or documentary evidence is available on record to establish the actual income of the deceased. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/- considering that he was a daily wage labourer in the 8 year 2003. The Tribunal also rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and arrived at the monthly contribution to the family at Rs.1,200/- (Rs.1,800/- - Rs.600/-), which comes to Rs.14,400/- per annum. Accordingly, by applying the correct multiplier of „18‟, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,59,200/- (Rs.14,400/- x 18) under the head of loss of dependency. 14. It is not in dispute that no amount was awarded under the head of loss of estate, to which the claimants are admittedly entitled. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, besides Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. It is needless to say that the Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly awarded compensation under the remaining heads, which requires no interference by this Court. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference only to the extent of enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,64,800/- to 9 Rs.2,94,200/-.Accordingly, appeal preferred by appellants/claimants is liable to be partly allowed. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 15. In result, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from ₹2,64,800/- to ₹2,94,200/- (Rupees Two lakh Ninety Four thousand and Two hundred only), together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, with proportionate costs, payable by Respondent Nos.,1 and 2 jointly and severally. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit enhanced compensation amount, together with accrued interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the claimant No.1/wife shall be entitled to enhanced compensation amount in addition to the compensation awarded to her by the Tribunal under the apportionment and she is permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. The Tribunal 10 shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 15.06.2026 Krs 11 173 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M.A.C.M.A.No.1758 of 2006 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 15.06.2026 Krs