APHC010127062006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, t The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Between: R.Poorna and others N Chinna Nagi Reddy and o Counsel for the Appellan 1. V Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent 1. Amancharla Satish Babu The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This petition is filed 1988, against the award and decree dated 342 of 2004 on the file of the C Tribunal-cum-V Additional compensation of Rs.1,75 petition till the date of payment 2. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the fourth day of March,2025 Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 378 of 2006 ...Appellants and a Nagi Reddy and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Amancharla Satish Babu The Court made the following: This petition is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 23-12-2005 in M.V.O.P.No on the file of the Court of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims V Additional District Judge, Tirupati 75,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment. s are the claimants and the respondents are the [3311] 2006 Appellants Respondents under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, in M.V.O.P.No. Chairman, Motor Accident Claims granting % p.a. from the date of s are the claimants and the respondents are the 2 MACMA.No.378 of 2006 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: The deceased V.Srinivasulu Reddy died in the road accident occurred on 20.06.2003 while he was travelling in a lorry bearing No.K.A.346369 as owner of the goods along with 19 bags of vegetables in the said lorry which met with the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry when he dashed it against a tree on the road side. 4. The claim was opposed by the 2nd respondent / insurer by filing written statement. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. 5. The claimants examined PW.1 R.Poorna, PW.2 N.Sundaraiah and filed Ex.A.1 Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.39 of 2003 of Thottamebdu police station, Ex.A.2 Certified copy of post-mortem certificate of Srinivasulu Reddy, Ex.A.3 Certified copy of inquest report of Srinivasulu Reddy, Ex.A.4 Certified copy of M.V.Inspector’s report and Ex.A.5 certified copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.39 of Thottambedu police in the Court of JFCM Srikalahasti. 6. The 2nd respondent examined M.Penchulaiah as RW.1 and marked insurance policy of the 1st respondent as Ex.B.1. 7. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal observed that the deceased was aged about 51 years and applied the multiplier ‘11’. The Tribunal evaluated the income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per annum as there was no other proof of the income filed by the claimants. Out of such income, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of future income of the deceased was valuated at Rs.1,32,000/- (12,000/- X 11). Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.3000/- towards 3 MACMA.No.378 of 2006 funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- was awarded. 8. The claim against the 2nd respondent / insurer was dismissed accepting the contention of the insurer that the deceased was travelling in the lorry which is a goods carrying commercial vehicle and no premium was paid to cover the risk of the owner of the goods under Ex.B.1. Therefore, the claim was allowed only against the 1st respondent / owner of the lorry. 9. Aggrieved by the award and decree, this appeal was filed, both on the ground of liability against the insurer and also for awarding less amount of compensation. In this regard, the claimants contended that fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day is on low side as the deceased was a businessman engaged in purchase and sale of fruits and vegetables and earning income of Rs.10,000/- per month and minimum of Rs.100/- per day ought to have been fixed by the Tribunal. It is further contended that the deceased used to contribute his entire income to the family and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. Similarly, the quantum of compensation awarded under the other heads were also challenged as per law. That apart, the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have fastened liability on the insurer. 10. Heard Ms Vallabhaneni Santisree, learned counsel representing the counsel for the appellants and Sri A.Satish Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 11. Though notice was served on the 1st respondent, no appearance has been made. Insofar as liability is concerned, issuance policy for the crime vehicle is not in dispute. As the lorry was registered as goods 4 MACMA.No.378 of 2006 carrier, the liability of insurer is limited to the liability as under Section 147 of the Act, as per which no separate premium is required to be paid to the owner of the goods. It is enough if the claimants establish that the deceased was travelling as a owner of the goods being carried in the insured goods carrier. Then, the liability of the insurer would arise. In the present case, there is clinching evidence that the deceased was travelling along with his 19 bags of vegetables. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have observed that the deceased was the owner of the goods since there is no evidence contrary to the said fact. If at all there is any person as owner of these goods other than the deceased, there needs to be such evidence on record. 12. In the facts established before the Tribunal, the reasonable inference that can be drawn is only that the deceased was the owner of the goods and travelling in the lorry as such. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay compensation and the finding of the Tribunal is contrary and incorrect. 13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal has to make a reasonable assessment based on notional valuation. Therefore, the tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day with reference to the year 2003 since even as a businessman or as a labourer, there will be fluctuation in the income of a person and various facts would influence on the quantum of income. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal about the income of the deceased does not require any interference. 14. It is settled law that 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses. So, the ground pleaded that the tribunal ought not 5 MACMA.No.378 of 2006 to have deducted any amount towards personal expenses of the deceased has no legal foundation. 15. The tribunal could have added some amount towards future prospects even in respect of persons who have fixed income or self- employment. Therefore, as the deceased was aged about 51 years, 10% of the income ought to have been added to the annual income of the deceased. So, it is (Rs.1,500 + Rs.150) Rs.1,650/- per month after addition of 10%. Out of it, 1/3rd is to be deducted. Then, it is Rs.1,100/- (Rs.1,650/- - Rs.550/-). Annual income is Rs.13,200/-. Now it is to be multiplied by 11. The result is Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.13,200/- X 11). 16. The amount of compensation of Rs.43,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) granted under the other heads by the tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, the total amount of compensation is Rs.1,88,200/-. 17. Accordingly, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced to Rs.1,88,200/-. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,88,200/- and the 2nd respondent is also made jointly and severally liable with the 1st respondent to pay the compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this appeal, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Dt.04.03.2025 PNV