IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.203 of 2023 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS No.9 of 2023 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 203 of 2023 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 03-05-2006 in MVOP.No.335 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole (Before the II Additional District Judge, Ongole), Prakasam District. Between: The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ongole ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Pamba Ramanjamma, W/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 50 years, 2. Pamba Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 26 years, (Respondent No.2 declared as Major 1®* Respondent (Mother) discharged of their guardian Vide Court Order dated 08.08.2024 i lA. No. 1/2021) 3. Pamba Venkata Ramana, D/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 30 4. OmpugudiAnjali, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Aged 18 5. Pamba Lingamma, W/o. Chennaiah,Aged 60 6. Pamba Chennaiah, S/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged 65 in years. years years years. All are R/ o. Gopalpuram Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/Claimants 7. Tati Kamala, W/o. Murali Krishna, Aged 36 years, Gaddalaguntua. Ongole, Owner of Car AP27F5544 ...Respondent/Respondent I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP. NO: 632 OF 2017^ 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2006 in MVOP No.335/2005 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V S K Rama Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Sri Anjaiah Kandula Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 6: None Appeared CROSS OBJECTIONS No.9 of 2023 Between: 1. Pamba Ramanjamma, W/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ: Housewife, 2. Pamba Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 29 years, Occ: Student 3. Pamba Venkata Ramana, D/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, 4. Ompugudi Anjali, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Aged 18 years, Occ: Housewife, Mim All are R/ o. Gopalpuram Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Cross Objectors/Respondent Nos.1 to 4 AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ongole. ...Respondent/Appellant 2. Pamba Lingamma, W/o. Chennaiah, Aged 60 years, (died) 3. Pamba Chennaiah, S/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged 65 years, (died) Both are R/o. Gopalpuram Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. Tati Kamala, W/o. Murali Krishna, Gaddalaguntua, Ongole, Owner of Car Bearing No.AP27F5544. ...Respondents/Respondent Nos.5 to 7 (The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are not necessary parties in this petition) Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. in M.A.C.M.A. No.203 of 2023 in MVO.P.No.335 of 2005 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole (Before the II Additional District Judge, Ongole), Prakasam District. Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri Anjaiah Kandula : Sri V S K Rama Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: None Appeared The Court made the following order: r- ' ii 0 APHC011409672016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 203/2023 And X Objections 9 of 2023 Between: The Assistant Commissioner Ongole ...APPELLANT AND P Ramanjamma Prakasam Dist And 6 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.VSKRAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ANJAIAH KANDULA The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of 2023 & Cross Objections 9 of 2023 COMMON JUDGMENT: The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P. No.335 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ongole and the respondents 1 to 6 herein are the petitioners and the 7^^ respondent is the 1®* respondent in the MVOP. 2. The claimants 1 to 4 filed cross objections No. 9 of 2023 claiming a total compensation of Rs. 16,61,000/-. 3. Since both the appeal and the cross objections arise out of the same order and decree, both these matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The claimants filed a claim petition under sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent and the appellant herein praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation on account of the death of Pamba Anjaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) who died in the road accident that occurred on 14.11.2004 at about 8 AM at Singarayakonda. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: The 1®' petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 to 4 are the children and petitioners 5 & 6 are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was driver-cum-owner of the auto bearing No.AP-27-U-4219 and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family. 5. 6. a. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.I\/I.A.No.203 of 2023 & Cross Objections 9 of 2023 b. While so, on 14.11.2004, at about 8 AM, when the deceased was driving his auto to go to Addanki from Singarayakonda, an Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-27F-5544 coming from Addanki towards Singarayakonda, came in an opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto of the deceased. The deceased received multiple injuries and out of all the injuries, the injury on the back side of the head is a serious one. The deceased became unconscious and was shifted to the Government Hospital, Addanki, and from there, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole where he was declared dead. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador car. The Ambassador was not insured with any insurance company and was engaged by the respondent on a monthly rent. On the date of the accident, Bhushaiah, Executive Officer, Singarayakonda temple working under the 2'"'^ respondent was travelling in the car. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioners. car The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 1®* petitioner filed chief affidavit and got marked exhibits A1 to A5. Exhibit A1 is the FIR in Crime No. 122 of 2004 of Addanki police station, exhibit A2 is the inquest report, dated 14.11.2004, of the deceased, exhibit A3 is the post mortem certificate of the deceased, exhibit A4 is the M.V.I report and exhibit A5 is the charge sheet in C.C.No.73 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki. c. d. 4 BSB, J M,A.C.M.A.No.203 of 2023 & Cross Objections 9 of 2023 Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following 7. issue: Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so how much and from whom? After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the petition granting a compensation of Rs.2,17,000/- with costs altogether with interest at 7.5% P.A from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ongole, preferred the present appeal and against the same award, the claimants in the said case filed cross objections vide Cross Objections No. 9 of 2023. 9. Now, the points for consideration are: i) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? 10. 11. POINT Nos.1 and 2 - The learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the vehicles are coming in opposite direction and as such, there is every possibility of contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, viz., car bearing No.AP 27 F 5544 and auto bearing No.AP 27 U 4219. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening the entire liability on the driver of the car on the ground that the respondents remained ex parte. The learned counsel further submitted that the 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of 2023 & Cross Objections 9 of 2023 Tribunal applied a wrong multiplier and that application of multiplier of ‘16’ to the person with an age of 40 years is erroneous and it should be ‘12’ and the compensation awarded is also over and above the claim made by the claimants. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants argued that the Tribunal failed to award amounts under the heads ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’, and ‘transport charges’ etc. Thus, it is submitted that the claimants are entitled to more compensation than what was granted by the Tribunal. 12. Just because the vehicles dashed in the opposite direction, it cannot be treated that there is contributory negligence. On the other hand, the fact that charge sheet was laid against only the driver of the car after conducting due investigation, it can be considered that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car only. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard needs no interference. 13. Coming to the quantum of compensation granted, on the basis of the FIR, the inquest report as well as the post mortem report, the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as ‘40’ years. The income of the deceased was taken as Rs.50/- per day and thus, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- and the annual income at Rs. 18,000/- and after deducting 1/3'^'^ towards his personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family was arrived at Rs. 12,000/- and after applying the multiplier of ‘16’, the Tribunal determined the ‘loss of dependency’ on account of the death of the deceased at Rs. 1,92,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium. Though a sum of Rs.15,000/- appears to 14. 6 BSB. J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of 2023 & Cross Objections 9 of 2023 have been awarded, it was not mentioned under which head, the said amount was awarded, expenses, which are usually granted in case of death. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.2,17,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. It could be for loss of estate and funeral 1 In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Ors. it was held as follows: 15. “8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors^ dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term, which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife, which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation." Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident " Neutral Citation: 2018 INSC 828 'AIR 2017 SC 5157 7 BSB, J M.A.C.MANo.203 of 2023 & Cross Objections 9 of 2023 leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.” The deceased is working as an auto driver. Even if he earns a sum of Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per day, there must be addition of 50% of his income towards future prospects as he is aged between 36 to 40 years. On an average, after such addition, his monthly income can be taken as Rs.3,000/-. Then, annual income is Rs.36,000/- out of which 1/5*^ can be taken as deduction towards his personal expenses due to a large number of dependants. His annual contribution would be Rs.28,800/-. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another^, for a person aged between 36 to 40 years, the relevant multiplier is 15 which shall be applied, but not ‘16’ as was done by the Tribunal. When the multiplier ‘15’ is applied, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.28,800/- XI5). 15. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards ‘loss of A sum of Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ was held to be proper as per the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors (supra). Thereafter, as per the very same decision, increase in its value after every three years also is held 16. consortium’. to be just. Therefore, the amount under this head depends on the time period of the accident. Since, in the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2004 when relatively prices and values were low. spousal consortium of Rs.20,000/- and parental and filial consortium of V AIR 2009 SC 3104 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of 2023 & Cross Objections 9 of 2023 Rs. 10,000/- each to claimants No.2 to 6, amounting to Rs.50,000/- can be awarded. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ can be reasonably granted. in light of the above-mentioned discussion, the claimants/cross objectors are entitled to the following amounts: 17. Compensation Awarded Head SI. No. Rs.4,32,000 Loss of dependency Parental and filial consortium Loss of spousal consortium Funeral expenses 1 Rs.50,000 2 Rs.20,000 3 Rs.10,000 4 Rs.15,000 Loss of estate 5 Rs.5,27,000 Total compensation There is no need to reduce or enhance the rate of interest 18. awarded as it was reasonable at the relevant period. In the result, the appeal filed by the 2'"'^ respondent is dismissed. The cross objections filed by the claimants are allowed enhancing amount of compensation from Rs.2,17,000/- to Rs.5,27,000/-. objectors shall pay necessary court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- within one month from the date of this order. Costs before the Tribunal increases proportionate to the amount of compensation. The liability of the respondents before the Tribunal is per the award by the Tribunal. The apportionment of the amount is proportionately increased as awarded by the Tribunal. On deposit, the entire amount is permitted to be withdrawn as per their entitlement. 19. 20. The cross as 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.203 of 2023 & Cross Objections 9 of 2023 No costs in the appeal or cross objections. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole-cum- the II Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri V S K Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Anjaiah Kandula, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Three CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED;28/02/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.203 of 2023 & CROSS OBJECTIONS No.9 of 2023 2 5 MAR 2025 ^ ^ . Current Section tp DISMISSING THE MACMA AND ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.203 of 2023 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS No.9 of 2023 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 203 of 2023 Between: The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ongole ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Pamba Ramanjamma, W/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 50 years 2. Pamba Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 26 years. (Respondent No.2 declared as Major 1®* Respondent (Mother) discharged of their guardian Vide Court Order dated 08.08.2024 in lA. No. 1/2021) 3. Pamba Venkata Ramana, D/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 30 years. 4. Ompugudi Anjali, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Aged 18 years 5. Pamba Lingamma, W/o. Chennaiah, Aged 60 years 6. Pamba Chennaiah, S/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged 65 years. All are R/ o. Gopalpuram Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/Claimants 7. Tati Kamala, W/o. Murali Krishna, Aged 36 years, Gaddalaguntua. Ongole, Owner of Car AP27F5544 ...Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 03-05-2006 in MVOP.No.335 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole (Before the II Additional District Judge, Ongole), Prakasam District. CROSS OBJECTIONS No.9 of 2023 Between: 1. Pamba Ramanjamma, W/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ: Housewife, 2. Pamba Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 29 years, Occ: Student 3. Pamba Venkata Ramana, D/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, 4. Ompugudi Anjali, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Aged 18 years, Occ: Housewife All are R/ o. Gopalpuram Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Cross Objectors/Respondent Nos.1 to 4 AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ongole. ...Respondent/Appellant 2. Pamba Lingamma, W/o. Chennaiah, Aged 60 years, (died) 3. Pamba Chennaiah, S/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged 65 years, (died) Both are R/o. Gopalpuram Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. Tati Kamala, W/o. Murali Krishna, Gaddalaguntua, Ongole, Owner of Car Bearing No.AP27F5544. ...Respondents/Respondent Nos.5 to 7 (The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are not necessary parties in this petition) Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. in M.A.C.M.A. No.203 of 2023 in MVO.P.No.335 of 2005 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole (Before the II Additional District Judge, Ongole), Prakasam District. This appeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V S K Rama Rao, advocate for the appellant, in MACMA No.203 of 2023 and Respondent No.1 in Cross Objection No.9 of 2023 and of Sri Anjaiah Kandula, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 4 in MACMA No.203 of 2023 and Cross Objectors in Cross Objection No.9 of 2023, None Appeared for Respondent Nos.5 to 6 in MACMA No.203 of 2023 and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Cross Objection No.9 of 2023. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the MACMA filed by the 2 dismissed. 2. That the Cross Objections filed by the claimants be and are hereby allowed. 3. That the amount of compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,17,000/- to Rs.5,27,000/-. nd respondent be and is hereby 4. That the cross objectors be and are hereby directed to pay necessary court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- within one month from the date of this order. 5. That the Costs before the Tribunal be increased proportionate to the amount of compensation. 6. That the liability of the respondents before the Tribunal be as per the award by the Tribunal. 7. That the apportionment of the amount be proportionately increased awarded by the Tribunal. 8. That on deposit, the entire amount be and is hereby permitted to be withdrawn as per their entitlement. 9. That there be no order as to costs in the appeal or cross objections. as Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 4 SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole-cum- the II Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. Three CD Copies TK vna ▼ mm HIGH COURT DATED:28/02/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.203 of 2023 & CROSS OBJECTIONS No.9 of 2023 X 2 5 MW MB I 0' Current Section DISMISSING THE MACMA AND ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTION