APHC010119222006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the fourth day of March two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms Justice B. Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Between: M. Damayanthi and two K James and another Counsel for the appellant 1. B.Parameswara Rao 2. T S Rayalu Counsel for the respondent 1. M Bhaskara Lakshmi 2. Gudi Srinivasu The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This petition is filed 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’) 13.10.2004 in M.V.O.P.No Chairman, Motor Vehicles District Judge, Guntur, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the fourth day of March two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 310/2006 two others ...Appellant and ...Respondents ppellants: wara Rao espondents: M Bhaskara Lakshmi The Court made the following: This petition is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘M.V.Act’) against the award and decree dated in M.V.O.P.No.1165 of 2000 on the file of the C Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional , granting compensation of Rs.89,000/ [3311] Appeal No: 310/2006 Appellants Respondents Motor Vehicles Act, against the award and decree dated on the file of the Court of III Additional granting compensation of Rs.89,000/- with 2 MACMA.No.310 of 2006 interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs. 2. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the tribunal. The claimants who are the wife and children of the deceased filed claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 and 455 and 476 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.10.2000. 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: On 23.10.2000 at about 4.30 p.m the deceased, Morla Veera Raghavaiah, started from his house on cycle to bring tablets and when he reached near the State Bank of India on Ponnur-Guntur road, the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 7V-4511 with truck bearing No.AP 7V-4512 drove the same in rash and negligent manner at a very high speed and hit the deceased as a result of which the deceased received grievous injuries. The sons of the deceased and others had admitted the deceased in the Peoples Trauma and Emergency Care Private Limited Hospital, Guntur for treatment. A case in Crime No.129 of 2000 was registered by the S.H.O., Chebrolu, against the driver of the said tractor under Section 338 IPC. The deceased was treated for about six days in intensive care, he died in that hospital on 28.10.2000. 4. The 1st respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and did not choose to contest the petition. 5. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying averments in the petition and contended that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are not 3 MACMA.No.310 of 2006 entitled to compensation as they are majors and not dependants on the income of the deceased. The tractor-trailor was not insured with the 2nd respondent and that there is no valid insurance policy at the time of accident. The quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, exaggerative and no basis for calculation. 6. On behalf of the claimants, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and PW.2 Shaik Shabbir, PW.3 K.Narasimha Rao and P.W.4 Dr.S.Hanumantha Rao were examined. The claimants filed Ex.A.1 Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.129 of 2000 of Chebrolu P.S., Ex.A.2 Certified copy of intimation of accident to the police, Ex.A.3 certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A.4 Certified copy of M.V.Inspector’s report, Ex.A.5 Certified copy of postmortem report, Ex.A.6 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.7 certificate showing the salary of the deceased, issued by Manager, Krishnaveni Enterprises, Chebrolu, Ex.A.8 Medical bills and prescriptions and Ex.A.9 Case sheet relating to the petitioner issued by Peoples Trauma and emergency hospital, Kothapet, Guntur. No documentary or oral evidence was led by the respondents. 7. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as aforesaid. 8. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have taken multiplier ‘18’ instead of ‘3’ and that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. The appellants further stated that the age of the deceased is 58 years as per the postmortem report. 9. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd appellant and Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the 3rd appellant. 4 MACMA.No.310 of 2006 10. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Notice to the 1st respondent was served but no appearance has been made. As the 1st appellant died pending the appeal, a memo dated 17.01.2022 was filed reporting that the legal heirs of the 1st appellant are on record as the 2nd and 3rd appellants to record the same. A copy of the death certificate of the 1st appellant is enclosed to the memo. As per the certificate, the appellant died on 15.04.2019. 11. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, however, if this Court is inclined to enhance the award of compensation, it can be restricted to the amount claimed in the petition. 12. The Tribunal found that the age of the deceased was not more than 60 years and, therefore, multiplier applicable to person aged 60 years was adopted, basing on the evidence of P.W.1 who stated that the deceased was aged 60 years, whereas the postmortem report under Ex.A.5 and charge sheet under Ex.A.6 shows the age of the deceased as 58 years. Multiplier applicable to persons aged between years 56 to 60 can be adopted. 13. The claimants filed salary certificate of the deceased issued by PW.3 marked as Ex.A.7 as per which the salary of the deceased is Rs.2,500/- per month. Taking the same into consideration, the Tribunal evaluated the annual income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- out of which 1/3rd was deducted to the personal expenses and the remaining is contributed to the family the same was multiplied by ‘3’ and assessed the value as Rs.60,000/- towards loss of dependency. That apart, the tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner and Rs.4000/- towards funeral expenses. In addition thereto, an amount of 5 MACMA.No.310 of 2006 Rs.20,000/- was granted as medical expenses. Thus, in total Rs.89,000/- was awarded as compensation. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that future prospects shall be taken into consideration, but the Tribunal did not do so. In fact, this ground has not been raised in the appeal. However, it is not a bar to consider as it is settled law. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.1, 10% of the income can be taken as future prospects for the persons aged between 50 to 60 years. Therefore, Rs.3,000/- shall be added to the annual contribution. Therefore, it is Rs.33,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd of it towards his personal expenses, it is Rs.22,000/-. 15. Insofar as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, it is necessary to examine the multipliers unanimously adopted as per the decision of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2. Then the relevant multiplier for the persons aged between 56 to 60 is ‘9’, but not ‘3’ as was adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the loss of contribution to the petitioners would be Rs.22,000/- X 9= Rs.1,98,000/-. 16. Since the Tribunal failed to grant any amount of compensation towards loss of estate, a reasonable amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted under the same head as the accident occurred during the year 2000. 17. Further, the amount of loss of consortium granted to the wife @ Rs.5,000/- is low. Therefore, it is increased to Rs.10,000/-. The other two petitioners are also entitled to parental consortium, each @ 1 Neutral Citation: 2017 INSC 1068 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 6 MACMA.No.310 of 2006 Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, all the three petitioners are entitled to total of Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of consortium. 18. The amount of funeral expenses can be raised to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.4,000/-. 19. Thus, in total the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,73,000/-. 20. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- jointly and severally to the appellants / claimants with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of payment. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 21. Subject to the above modifications, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this appeal, shall stand closed. __________________ Dt.04.03.2025 B.S.BHANUMATHI, J PNV