APHC010398622007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1194/2007 Between: 1. N. GURAVAIAH & 4 ORS, S/O. CHINNAIAH COOLIE R/O. PEDDAKANNALI VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. N. SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O. CHINNAIAH COOLIE R/O. PEDDAKANNALI VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. N. SUDHAKAR, S/O. CHINNAIAH COOLIE R/O. PEDDAKANNALI VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. N.CHANDRAIAH (DIED), S/O. CHINNAIAH COOLIE R/O. PEDDAKANNALI VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5. N. NIRMALA, W/O.CHANDRAIAH COOLIE R/O. PEDDAKANNLI VILLAGE THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. S SREERAMA MURTHY ANR, R/O. D.NO.8-10-33, 1ST 2 LANE, NEHRU NAGAR GUNTUR-522 001 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, GUNTUR-2, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PRAKASAM ROAD ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Counsel for the Appellant(S): S V MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): P HARINATH GUPTA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 08.03.20071 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Tirupati2, in M.V.O.P.No.79 of 20033. 2. The appellantsare the claimants before the Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under 1hereinafter called as „Impugned award‟ 2 hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟ 3 hereinafter called as „Claim petition‟ 3 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.AP 07T 49604 respectively. 3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: a. On 11.10.2002 at about 03.00 a.m., the driver of the crime lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the same and dashed against claimant‟s house situated on Peddakannali village of Thottambedu Mandal, resulted the house was badly damaged and their cow in that premises also died on the spot. Hence, the petition, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 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 and that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4 hereinafter referred as „crime lorry‟ 4 5. During enquiry before the Tribunal,on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1and 2 wereexamined and Exs.A.1 to A.5wereexhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2,none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 policy copy was marked by consent. 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 lorry is in force by the date of incident. Accordingly, a sum of ₹80,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants, together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, payable by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the damages caused in the accident. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement thereof. 8. Heard SriS.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. None appeared for the respondents. 5 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the estimated loss assessed under Ex.A.4 report by P.W.2 was Rs.1,35,000/-, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same while awarding compensation. He further submits that the cow, valued at Rs.15,000/- and yielding 15 litres of milk per day, also died in the accident; however, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards the said loss, which requires enhancement. Accordingly, he prays for enhancement of the compensation as claimed and for allowing the present appeal 10. Now, the onlypoint that arises for determination is; “Whether the claimantsare entitled for enhancement of compensation for the damage sustained by them in the accident, if so, to what amount?” 11. It is not in dispute regarding the damage caused to the house of the claimants and the death of their cow in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry. It is also not in dispute that neither the owner nor the insurer preferred any appeal against the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 6 12. The claimants sought a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards damage to their house and the articles therein. In support of their claim, they examined P.W.2, Assistant Engineer in the Panchayat Raj Department. His testimony shows that he prepared an estimate under Ex.A.4 assessing the cost of construction of a new house in place of the damaged house at Rs.1,35,000/-. Admittedly, as seen from Ex.A.5 photographs, the entire house was not damaged. Further, no material was placed on record to assess the exact extent of damage to the structure of the house. Taking the same into consideration, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards damage to the house and Rs.20,000/- towards damage to the articles therein. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A.4 is only an estimate prepared for reconstruction of a new house and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the actual loss sustained by the claimants. At the same time, the evidence on record clearly establishes that substantial damage was caused to the house and the articles therein due to the accident. Therefore, while the claimants may not be entitled to the entire amount claimed, they are certainly entitled to reasonable 7 compensation commensurate with the damage proved on record.In view of the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, coupled with Ex.A.4 estimate report, this Court is of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards damage to the house and Rs.25,000/- towards damage to the articles therein would be just and reasonable. 13. Admittedly, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the death of the Jersey cow in the accident, as against the claim of Rs.15,000/-. The said finding requires no interference by this Court, as no substantial material was placed on record to establish the actual value of the cow as claimed by the appellants.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.80,000/- to Rs.95,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is liable to be partly allowed. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 14. In result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from 8 ₹80,000/- to ₹95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Fivethousand only), together with interest at the rate of 7% 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 the 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 claimants are entitled to withdraw entire compensation amount with interest accrued thereon.The Tribunal 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: 18.06.2026 Krs 9 268 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M.A.C.M.A.No.1194 of 2007 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 18.06.2026 Krs