Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010279702022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 25 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 Between: 1. DAMARLA SITA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O LATE SAMBASIVA RAO, 65Y, OPP. TO MEDICAL COLLEGE MEN'S HOSTEL, AMARAVATHI ROAD, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR JCJC 1. MISS MOGAL KARIMUNNISA, D/O MASTAN, (OWNER OF THE SCOTTY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP 07 CM 1590) D. NO. 7-323C, NAVULURU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, MANGALAGIRI JCJC 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE NO. 1, D.NO. 5 COMPLEX, 4/7, BRODIPET, GUNTUR, POLICY NO. 1508013115P101854603 VALIED FROM 14 Appeal filed under Order present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of M.V. Act aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1067 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge, Guntur dt. 20-4-2022 1 Date of reserved for orders : - - - Date of pronouncement : 25.06.2026 06.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 DAMARLA SITA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O LATE SAMBASIVA RAO, 65Y, OPP. TO MEDICAL COLLEGE MEN'S HOSTEL, AMARAVATHI ROAD, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR JCJC ...APPELLANT AND MISS MOGAL KARIMUNNISA, D/O MASTAN, (OWNER OF THE SCOTTY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP 07 CM 1590) D. 323C, NAVULURU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, MANGALAGIRI JCJC UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE NO. 1, D.NO. 5-37-197/1, NAGARJUNA COMPLEX, 4/7, BRODIPET, GUNTUR, POLICY NO. 1508013115P101854603 VALIED FROM 14-5-2015 TO 13 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of M.V. Act aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1067 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 of 2022 DAMARLA SITA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O LATE SAMBASIVA RAO, 65Y, OPP. TO MEDICAL COLLEGE MEN'S HOSTEL, AMARAVATHI ROAD, ...APPELLANT MISS MOGAL KARIMUNNISA, D/O MASTAN, (OWNER-CUM-DRIVER OF THE SCOTTY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP 07 CM 1590) D. 323C, NAVULURU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH 197/1, NAGARJUNA COMPLEX, 4/7, BRODIPET, GUNTUR, POLICY NO. 2015 TO 13-5-2016 ...RESPONDENT(S): 41 of CPC before the High Court begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of M.V. Act aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1067 of 2018 on the -III Addl. District 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit them to amend the amount of compensation claimed from Rs. 8,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/- in the Original Petition in MVOP No. 1067 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Addl.District Judge, Guntur dt. 20-4-2022 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAMANJANEYULU 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 215 of 2022 JUDGMENT:- Initially, the appellant herein filed M.V.O.P.No.1067 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Guntur seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of her daughter D.Koteswari in a motor accident that occurred on 24.01.2016. The Tribunal below, vide order, dated 20.04.2022 awarded an amount of Rs.7,91,000/- towards compensation. The Claimant preferred the present Appeal before this Court along with I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/-, which was allowed by this Court, vide orders, dated 25.06.2026. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: On 24.01.2016 at about 6.30 a.m, while the deceased was going on scooty bearing No. AP 07 CM 1590 as pillion rider with Respondent No.1, who is owner-cum-driver of it and the same was turned turtle after fell into a ditch, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injuries to her head and immediately after the accident she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, there she was succumbed to the injuries in the emergency ward itself. The Tadikonda Police registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2016 as 4 against the Respondent No.1. The Claimant being the mother of the deceased filed Claim Petition claiming compensation from the Respondents. 4. The Respondent No.1 remained exparte. 5. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.2 filed Counter denying all material averments made in the claim petition and inter alia contended that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the scooty bearing No. AP 07 CM 1590 at the time of accident. The rider of the scooty in question has no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and alleged vehicle have no valid registration certificate, which is an infringement of specified conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the Claimant cannot claim any compensation from the Respondent No.2. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether Damala Koteswari died in the road accident occurred on 24.1.2016 at about 6.30 a.m due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the scooty bearing No. AP 07 CM 1590. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the Petitioner/Claimant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the Respondents RW-1 and RW-2 were examined and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 documents. 5 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against Respondent No.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.7,91,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of realization and Respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the Award. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant/ Claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by contending that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased of Rs. 5,000/- per month while evaluating loss of dependency without considering the reasonable income of the deceased of Rs. 9,000/- per month as fruit vendor as her avocation was established by the Claimant and accepted by the Tribunal among other grounds. Therefore, the Appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/ Insurance Company herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Claimant seeking enhancement of compensation on the sole ground that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- per month, though she was 6 earning Rs. 9,000/- per month as fruit vendor as per evidence of PW-1, who is none other than the mother of the deceased. 13. Perused the record. 14. With regard to issue No.1, the Sole Claimant, who is mother of the deceased got examined herself as PW-1, who deposed with regard to nature of the accident and she categorically stated that on 24.01.2026 at about 6.30 a.m, while the deceased was going on scooty bearing registration No. AP 07 CM 1590 as a pillion rider with the Respondent No.1, who is owner-cum- driver of the said scooty, turned turtle, thereafter fell into a ditch. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries to her head and immediately after the accident she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, where she succumbed to the injuries in emergency ward itself. 15. In support of her case, PW-1 got marked Ex.A1 to A4. The Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A1 i.e copy of FIR in Crime No.15 of 2016 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC; Ex.A2 – Certified Copy of Charge Sheet in Crime No.15 of 2016, which was filed as against the Respondent No.1 i.e driver –cum- owner of the scooty bearing AP 07 CM 1590 after due investigation, answered the issue No.1 in favour of Claimant holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e Respondent No.1. 16. Coming to the issue No.2. As per evidence of PW-1, the deceased was aged about 29 years and she was hale and healthy and earning Rs. 300/- per 7 day by doing fruit business. In the absence of any other evidence, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. Regarding determination of the earning capacity of the deceased, it should be observed that admittedly, the accident took place on 24.01.2016 and there is no documentary evidence to establish that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, except the statement of PW-1, who is none other than the mother of the deceased. Under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the absence of any evidence to the extent of earnings of the deceased or injured, the Tribunal should take into consideration the minimum wages payable as on the date of accident. As per minimum wages notified by the Government as on 01.04.2016 an unskilled labour is entitled for Rs. 211/- per day as per Order No.1/43(1)/2016-LS-II, Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, dated 30.09.2016. If the same is considered, the monthly income would come to Rs. 6,330/-. As the deceased was unmarried as on the date of accident as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, 50% of her income is to be deducted towards her personal expenses. If the same is deducted, the loss of earnings would come to Rs.3,165/- (Rs. 6,330/- -50%). The Claimant is entitled for 40% of enhancement of earnings. If the same is considered, loss of earnings would come to Rs.4,431/- (Rs. 3,165 x 40%). After applying appropriate multiplier ‘17’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, to the age group of 29 years, the loss of earnings 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 8 would come to Rs. 9,03,924/- (Rs.4,431/- x 12 x 17). Apart from the same, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads viz., funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate, which in the opinion of this Court is reasonable. 17. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amounts now enhanced by this Court 1. Loss of dependency 7,14,000/- 9,03,924/- 2. Funeral charges 16,500/- 16,500/- 3. Filial consortium 44,000/- 44,000/- 4. Loss of estate 16,500/- 16,500/- Total 7,91,000/- 9,80,924/- 18. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, while enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,91,000/- to Rs.9,80,924/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of realization as per terms of the Award of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 25.06.2026 KK Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No