IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 801 OF 2014 Between: 1. Poluri Sarojamma, W/o Ramudu, Aged about 30 years, dependant R/o Kamalapuram Village, Kesavapuram Post, Garladinne Mandal, 2. Poluri Priyanka, D/o Ramudu minor, Aged about 12 years, R/o Kamalapuram Village, Kesavapuram Post, Garladinne Mandal, 3. Poluri Chopra, S/o Ramudu, Aged about 10 years, minor, Appellants 2 and 3 are rep.by their mother P. Sarojamma R/o Kamalapuram Village, Kesavapuram Post, Garladinne Mandal, ^4. Poluru Marekka, S/o Kristappa, Aged about 58 years, dependant R/o X Kamalapuram Village, Kesavapuram Post, Garladinne Mandal, ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. M. Lakshmi rathnamma, W/o Sudarshan Naidu, age: Major Owner of Crime Vehide R/o Narasanayani Kuntal Village, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Ananthapur Distrcit. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited. Rep.by its Divisional, Manager, Anantapur. Insurer of the lorry Ir-^ 3. B.Venugopal, S/o Narayana, age: major [Transfer of the Policy] D.No. 8/263, Gulzarpet, Anantapur. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act praying that the High Court may be pleased to against Appeal Aggrieved Orders the Decree Judgment passed in OP.NO. 291 of 2009 dated 17-2-2010 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge Family Court cum Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, for the Appellant and Sri . P. Raja Sekhar, for the Respondent Nos.2 and none appeared for respondents 1. This Court doth order and decree as follows: That the appeal be and is hereby Allowed That the order dated 17.02.2010 in OPNo.291 of 2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur be and is hereby modified to the extent enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,90,000/- to Rs.3,42,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. That the Respondent No.2/ United India Insurance Limited be and is hereby directed to pay the compensation along with records if any accrued interest within 30 days from the date of this order before the claims tribunal after giving due credit to the '•"amounts paid if any. (iv) That there shall be no order as to costs. and material (i) (ii) (iii) Company SD/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The MACT cum Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Anantapur. 2. Three CD Copies YM HIGH COURT DATED: 09/05/2025 decree iViACft^A.No.801 of 2014 X THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 801 OF 2014 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act praying that the High Court may be pleased to against Appeal Aggrieved Orders the Decree and Judgment passed in OP.NO. 291 of 2009 dated 17-2-2010 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge Family Court cum Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur. Between: 1. Poluri Sarojamma, W/o Ramudu, Aged about 30 years, dependant R/o Kamalapuram Village, Kesavapuram Post, Garladinne Mandal, 2. Poluri Priyanka, D/o Ramudu minor, Aged about 12 years, R/o Kamalapuram Village, Kesavapuram Post, Garladinne Mandal, 3. Poluri Chopra, S/o Ramudu, Aged about 10 years, minor. Appellants 2 and 3 are rep.by their mother P. Sarojamma R/o Kamalapuram Village, Kesavapuram Post, Garladinne Mandal, 4. Poluru Marekka, S/o Kristappa, Aged about 58 years, dependant R/o Kamalapuram Village, Kesavapuram Post, Garladinne Mandal, ...APPELLANT(S) AND M. Lakshmi rathnamma , W/o Sudarshan Naidu, age: Major Owner of Crime Vehicle R/o Narasanayani Kuntal Village, Anantapur Rural Mandai, Ananthapur Distrcit. 1. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional, Manager, Anantapur. Insurer of the lorry B.Venugopal, S/o Narayana, age: major [Transfer of the Policy] D.No. 8/263, Gulzarpet, Anantapur. 3. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the AppellantsiSri. Ineni Venkata Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. P.Raja Sekhar For R2 The Court made the following Judgment: APHC010154882014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 801/2014 Between: Poluri Sarojamma And 3 Others and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND M Lakshmi Rathnamma And 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAJA SEKHAR P 2.. The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.801 of 2014 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR MAGMA No.801 of 2014 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) is filed by the appellants/claiman ts impugning the order dated 17.02.2010 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Judge, Family Court - Cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur in O.P.No.291 of 2009. 2. The following facts are required to be noticed: - Sri P.Ramudu @ Chintha Ramudu along with others was at a road margin in Garladinne Village at about 03.00 pm on 18.03.2008. Suddenly, a Maruthi Omni Van bearing registration No. AP 29 N 5642 came and dashed him, causing serious injuries to him. He was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapur where he died on the same day. In this regard, as against the driver of the offending Maruthi Omni Van, Cr.No.29 of 2008/ Ex.AI-FIR was registered at Garladinne Police Station. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the said driver of the offending vehicle/ Ex.A4. The dead body of the Dr.VRKSJ MACMA.No.801 of 2014 deceased was subjected to inquest/ Ex.A2 His wife and two of his children and his mother petition under section 163A of the MV Act, and autopsy/Ex.A3. together filed a 1988 praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. There were three respondents. R1 and R3 did not choose to appear and contest. R2 filed its counter denying the version stated in the claim petition 3. Learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the accident occurred on 18-3-2008 at about 3 P.M. near Ranganayakulu Hotel at Gariadinne while the deceased was proceeding on extreme road margin, due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi van bearing No.AP- 29-N-5642 by its driver dashed against the deceased on his back side and he died? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from which respondent? 3. To what relief? 4. At the trial, the wife of the deceased testified as PW.1 and got marked Exs.AI to A4. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent/ insurance company. Though the claim petition was one under section 163A of the MV 4 Dr.VRKSJ MACMA.No.801 of 2014 Act which did not require pleading and proof of fault, the learned claims tribunal went on to discuss the evidence and finally held that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the Maruthi Omni Van by its driver and that negligence caused the death of Sri P.Ramudu @ Chintha Ramudu. It assessed the compensation under various heads as mentioned below: - Amount in Rs. 1. Towards loss of dependency 2,56,000/- 2. Towards loss of consortium 15,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate 15,000/- 4. Towards funeral expenses 4,000/- Thus, total compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- was awarded in I:: the following terms: In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and ninety thousands) only to the petitioners subject to the deduction of the compensation amount, if any, awarded under no fault liability along with Interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the same ie., 11-5-2009 till the date of realization 5 Dr.VRKSJ MACMA.No.801 of 2014 against the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the decree amount into court within 3 (three) months from this date. After the decree amount is deposited, the same has to be apportioned as follows:- 1- First petitioner 2. Second petitioner 3. Third petitioner 4. Fourth petitioner First petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only and her balance compensation amount is ordered to be kept under fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years and she is permitted to withdraw the same after the completion of such period. 4th petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire compensation amount along with interest and proportionate costs on account of her old age. Compensation amount of minor second petitioner is ordered to be kept under fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in her name until she attains majority and fixation of her marriage and she is permitted to withdraw the same after she attained majority and fixation of her marriage by showing sufficient proof to court regarding the same Compensation amount of minor 3rd petitioner is ordered to be kept under fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in his name until he attains majority and he is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands) only after he attained majority and balance compensation amount, two years thereafter. far as the petition filed against the 3rd respondent IS concerned, the same is dismissed without costs impleaded as proforma party only. ” 5. Peeved about inadequacy of compensation, the claimant preferred this appeal. Various facts available from the -Rs. 1,00,000/- -Rs. 70,000/- -Rs. 70,000/- - Rs. 50,000/- X as he is record and the legal principles applicable to those facts have been argued by I ... 6 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.SOlof 2014 % Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for appellants and Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for R2/ United India Insurance Company Limited. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is 6. Whether the compensation awarded cannot be termed as just compensation requiring modification in view of the facts and law? POINT: - The subject matter accident occurred on 18.03.2008. Claim petition was filed on 11.05.2009. 1®‘ claimant/ Smt.P.Sarojamma 7. was the wife of the deceased. She showed her age as 28 years, which remained undisputed all throughout. Age of the deceased: - The age of the deceased as spoken to by PW.1 was that 8. her husband was aged 30 years. No contrary evidence was brought on record by the contesting insurance company. From the above evidence, it is quite possible to reach to the conclusion that the deceased could be said to be aged 30 years. However, learned claims tribunal stated that if the wife was aged 27 years 7 Dr.VRKSJ MACMA.No.801 of 2014 by the time of subject matter accident, her husband could not have been aged 30 years by then. One fails to understand the logic behind that finding of the claims tribunal. Claims tribunal recorded that in its opinion, the deceased could have been in the age group between 35 and 40 years. Why it reached to such a finding cannot be deciphered from the record. It is in these circumstances, this court finds merit in the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the claims tribunal committed error in deciding the age of the deceased. For the reasons mentioned above, this court records that the deceased/ Sri P.Ramudu @ Chintha Ramudu was aged 30 years by the time of his death on 18.03.2008. Multiplier: - 9. Claims tribunal on considering the age of the deceased as 35 to 40 years, applied multiplier 16. Since it is now found that the age of the deceased was only 30 years by the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier is 17 as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport 8 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.801 of 2014 Corporation^. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in this case is 17. Deduction towards possible personal expenses: - 10. Claims tribunal after arriving at the ' multiplier and multiplicand, deducted 1/3"'^ towards possible personal expenses of the deceased. In terms of the ratio in Sarla Verma’s case^. and since the facts on record show that the deceased was survived by four of his legal representatives who were dependent on him, the appropriate deduction towards possible personal expenses should be 1/4‘T Income of the deceased: - According to PW.I, the deceased was doing agricultural and real estate business and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. In her evidence, PW.I failed to disclose what did she mean by real estate business of her husband. No other evidence was brought on record about deceased being engaged in any such real estate business or agriculture. Claims tribunal rightly concluded saying that there was no material to accept the income 11. \ 1 2009 (6) see 121 ^ Supra 1 9 Dr.VRKSJ MACMA.No.801 of 2014 that was stated by PW.1. Therefore, it assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-. This court finds that regard. no error in Compensation to be awarded: - 12. The monthly income of the deceased is Rs.2,000/-. Annual income comes to Rs.24,000/-. 1/4*'^ of it is Rs.6,000/-. Thus, the net income comes to Rs. 18,000/-. Multiplier 17 is applied and Rs.3,06,000/- is arrived at towards loss of dependency. 13. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranav Setup, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the principles concerning compensation under conventional heads such as towards loss of consortium - Rs.40,000/-: towards loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/- and towards funeral Rs. 15,000/- totaling Rs. 70,000/-. Claims tribunal expenses - granted only Rs.34,000/-. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs.36,000/- is granted. 14. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.3,42,000/- is found to be the just compensation that ought to have been awarded by the I H2017) 16 see 680 10 Dr.VRKS,J MACMA.No.801 of 2014 m claims tribunal which it failed. Hence, the impugned award requires modification in this regard. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, MACMA.No.801 of 2014 is allowed. Order dated 17.02.2010 in O.P.No.291 of 2009 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum Judge, Family Court - cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur is modified to the extent of enhancing the compensation awarded from Rs.2,90,000/- to Rs.3,42,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.2/ United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the compensation along with accrued interest within 30 days from the date of this order before the claims tribunal after giving due credit to the amounts paid if any. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any shall stand closed. SD/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge Family Court cum Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur. 2. One CC to Sri. Ineni Venkata Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. P.Raja Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies YM HIGH COURT •Vi DATED: 09/05/2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.801 of 2014 X THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED