APHC010002902019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1 of 2019 Bench Sr.No:-7 [3505] Shaik Bade Bee And 2 Others and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Kankipati Suresh Raju And 1 Another and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: P SAI SURYA TEJA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): VENKATESWARLU PALADUGU, CORAM : SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR DATE : 24th July 2026 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking to enhance the compensation awarded through order dt.01.08.2018 in MVOP No.1101 of 2016, on the file of the Chairperson, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 140 & 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder claiming compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum on account of the death of Shaik Hussain, the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3. 4. The case of the petitioners was that on 21.06.2016 while the deceased was going to meet his brother, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.AP07TC 3791 driven by the owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result the deceased fell down unconscious and died on the spot. It was further stated that the brother of the deceased witnessed the accident. 5. A case in Crime No.108 of 2016 under Section 304-A IPC was registered, on the file of I Town Police Station, Vijayawada. 6. It was further case of the petitioners that the deceased was working as sales man in sweet shop and used to 3 earn Rs.12,500/- per month. In view of the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing the above claim petition. 7. The 1st respondent having filed counter affidavit, did not choose to contest the petition and he remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim stating that there was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It was further averred that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license as on the date of accident. It was further denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased, inter alia it was also contended that the claim made by the petitioners was excessive. 8. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1, apart from examining PWs 2 & 3. Further, the petitioners also marked documents in Exs.A1 to A4. Copy of the Ex.X1-Original RC of the sweet shop belonging to PW-2 was marked through him. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. Considering the pleadings and evidence placed on record, the Tribunal by impugned order partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- 4 together with interest @ 7.5% per annum by fastening the liability on the 2nd respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 9. Heard Sri P.Surya Teja, counsel appearing for the appellant/claimants, Sri P.Ganesh representing Sri P.Venkateswarlu for respondent No.2 and despite service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.1. 10. Perused the material available on record. 11. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the Tribunal erred taking the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, despite the specific pleading of the petitioner in the claim petition that the deceased was working in as sales man in sweet shop belonging to PW-2 and earning an amount of Rs.12,500/- per month. In order to prove the same, the petitioners got examined Sri Pagadala Sai Krishna, owner of the sweet shop as PW-2. 12. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2 would show that the deceased was worked in his shop as sales man for the last eight (08) years before the accident. He further deposed that he used to pay an amount of Rs.12,500/- per month towards salary of the deceased. 5 13. Further copy of registration certificate of the said shop was marked through him as Ex.X1. The counsel for the appellants would further submit that despite ample evidence was available on record, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, observing that no documentary evidence was filed, so as to establish that the deceased was working in PW-2 sweet shop. 14. On the other hand, the counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the order of the Tribunal does not warrant interference, inasmuch as the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their contention. He would further submit that, by appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. 15. The counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited”1 would submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court having considered the evidence filed by the employer of the deceased therein has fixed the income of the deceased as such. Whereas 1 (2019) 7 SCC 217 6 in the case on hand, the Tribunal did not give any reason as to why the evidence of PW-2 was disbelieved, thereby the Tribunal notionally fixed the income of the petitioners as Rs.6,000/-. 16. Further, a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that PW-2 deposed that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.12,500/- per month. The only ground on which the evidence of PW-2 was disbelieved was that, no documentary evidence was filed in order to substantiate the claim that the deceased was working in PW-2 sweet shop. The said observation of the Tribunal does not stand for judicial scrutiny in view of the judgment referred to herein above. Further, it was the specific case of the petitioners right from the beginning that the deceased was working as sales man in PW-2 sweet shop. In such circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- is not sustainable. As the accident was occurred in the year 2016, the income of the sales man in any shop would be around of Rs.9,000/- per month and accordingly the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.9,000/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation is computed as under:- 7 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,42,000/- to Rs.16,62,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum. It is needless to mention that the enhanced compensation together with interest shall be deposited by the 2nd respondent within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 18. The claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 27.07.2026 DR S.N o. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs.9,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,08,000/- 2. Future Prospects (aged 38) Rs.43,200/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income Rs. 1,51,200/- 3. Deduction (i.e., 1/3rd) Rs. 50,400/- 4. Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs. 1,00,800/- 5. Multiplier of 15 for the age of 38 years Rs.1,00,800 x 15 = Rs.15,12,000/- Conventional heads 6. Loss of consortium (3 claimants) Rs. 40,000 x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.16,62,000/- 8 60 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA No.1 of 2019 Date: 24.07.2026 U DR