APHC010425032019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 159/2020 Between: 1. R GOMATHA, W/O LATE R.MANOHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 2. R.MOUNIKA,, D/O LATE R.MANOHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. 3. R.CHAITHANYA,, S/O LATE R.MANOHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF D.NO.5-20, CHERLOPALLE VILLAGE, GANGADHAR NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. U C KARTHIK, S/O U.V.CHANCLRASEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O D.NO.131, 16TH CROSS, 19TH MAIN, RAJAJI NAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE. 2. K N PRABHUDEVA, S/O K.N.NAGARAJA, R/O KIRNGURU GRAMA, NANDINATHAPURA POST, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 3. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, , ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG NAGAR, SIDDHA VINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to set-aside the order and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed in MV0P.No.158 of 2017 by the IX Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, in so far as it went against the interest of the appellants and allow the MVOP in toto and grant enhanced compensation of Rs.18.81,000/- instead of claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to condone the delay of 280 days in filing the MACMA against the order and decree dated 1.10.2018 passed in MVOP.No.158 of 2017 by the IX Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 Pleased to amend the main prater in MVOP.No.158 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor to enhance compensation amount to Rs.18,81,000/- instead of the claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- in MVOP.No.158 of 2017 and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. HEMANTH KUMAR VENNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.159 of 2020 JUDGMENT:- The appellants filed claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased R. Manohar Reddy (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the accident that occurred on 22.02.2017 in which Maruthi Ritz Car bearing Registration No.KA-45-9726 belonging to the respondent No.2 was involved. The case of the petitioners is that on 22.02.2017, the deceased along with his daughter was proceeding to Cherlopalle bus stop by walk. Then the offending vehicle came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner without taking precaution and dashed the deceased. As a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on head, knees, right elbow and abrasions over right hip. Immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Chittoor and later he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore for better treatment. It was further case of the petitioners that while he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. A Case in Crime No.18 of 2017 under Section 304-A of I.P.C was registered against the respondent No.1/ driver of the offending vehicle. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.1. It was further case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 54 years and he was hale and healthy, as on the date of the accident. It was further stated that the deceased was mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and the entire income was being contributed to the family members. As the sole bread winner of the family was expired, the petitioners approached the Tribunal seeking to pay compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- together with interest. 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 resisted the claim by filing a counter-affidavit stating that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license and therefore, if at all the compensation was to be paid, the same has to be paid by the respondent No.2/ owner of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, an additional counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent No.3 contending that the offending vehicle was never involved in the accident as per the compliant of the daughter of the deceased. It was a hit and run case and later in order to fix the liability on the insurance company, the offending vehicle was shown as if it involved in the alleged accident. With the said pleadings, the respondent No.3/ insurance company prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 3. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, they have examined PWs. 1 to 3 and got marked exhibits A1 to A7. On the other hand, the respondent have examined RW-1 and RW-2 and marked exhibits B1 to B3. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal by order under challenge, awarded compensation of Rs.5,95,653/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants approached this Court by way of the present appeal on the ground that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and prayed to enhance the same. 5. Heard Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondent No.3. 6. Perused the material available on record. The counsel for the appellants would strenuously contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and the same is not in accordance with law. He would further submit that, as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 1 it has ben reiterated that the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation as claimed in the petition. He would further contend that it was the specific case of the petitioners that the deceased was a mason by avocation, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He further submits that, in order to prove the same, the petitioner No.1/ wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1 who categorically deposed that the deceased was mason and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Though, PW-1 was examined at length, nothing was elicited to disprove her evidence by respondent No.3/ insurance company. Further on perusal of the evidence of RW-1 and RW-2, it is clear that they deposed in relation to the nature of the accident and with 1 2017 (16) SCC 680 regard to the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation. Further, it is pertinent to note that the insurance company did not file any appeal, aggrieved by the order under challenge. In such circumstances, inference can be drawn that offending vehicle was involved in the accident, and therefore, it is liable to pay compensation. 6. The Tribunal did not believe the evidence of PW-1, despite the fact the she categorically deposed that the deceased was mason by avocation and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. A perusal of the order under challenge would go to show that the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW-1 on the ground that she did not file any documentary evidence in support of her Claim. 7. In this context, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence of PW-1 and absolutely, no reasoning was given by the Tribunal while rejecting the case of the petitioners in this regard. The Tribunal, while disbelieving the evidence of PW-1, took the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and, after deductions, computed the compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.5,95,653, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization, fastening the liability on respondent Nos. 1 to 3, i.e., driver, owner, and the insurance company. 8. In the case on hand, the accident was occurred on 22.02.2017 and the age of the deceased was 54 years as on the date of the accident. This Court while dealing with the similar issue on hand, taken the income of mason as Rs.11,670/- per month by following the Gazette Notification No.1149 dated 13.03.2017 issued by the State Government as pr Rule 25 (V) (b) of the A.P. Contract Labour (R & A) Rules, 1971. 9. The said Notification has already come into force w.e.f 13.03.2017 whereas in the present case, the accident was occurred on 22.02.2017. As the gap between the date of accident and the date of notification is less than one month, by following the notification, this Court is of the considered view that the income of the deceased can be notionally fixed as Rs.11,670/- 10. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the Tribunal, while awarding compensation, did not grant any amount under the various heads, including consortium to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case the compensation is computed as under: Description of the head Amount entitled in Rupees Net Annual Income Rs.11,670 x 12 = Rs.1,40,040/- Future prospects (at the age of 54 years) Rs.14,004/- (i.e., 10% of the income) Total income Rs.1,54,044/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3th) Rs.51,348/- Total annual loss of dependency Rs.1,02,696/- Multiplier of 11 for the age 54 years Rs.11,29,656/- (1,02,696 x 11) Conventional heads 1.Loss of consortium ( 3 claimants) Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3) 2. loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 3. Future expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.12,79,656/- 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, and the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.12,79,656/- (Rupees Twelve lakh seventy-nine thousand six hundred and fifty-six only) together with interest at 7.5% per annum. The said amount shall be paid to the appellants within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 06.04.2026 JLSR 181 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA.No: 159 of 2020 Date: 06.04.2026 JLSR