V • IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 920 OF 2017 Between; APSRTC, Kadapa Dist, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Regional Office Near RTC Bus Stand, Kadapa City, Kadapa District. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. N Vijayamma , W/o. Late Nallaballe Naganna @ Seemon, Aged about 36 years. Caste by S.C, House Maker, R/o. D. No: 2-20, K. Thimmapuram Village, Muddanur Mandal, Kadapa District. Presently R/at Near Mariyapuram Church, Mariyapuram, Kadapa City, Kadapa District. Nallaballe Nagamma @ Avula Nagamma,, W/o. Avula Madhubabu, D/o. Late Nallaballe Naganna, Aged about 20 years. House Wife, Case by S.C, R/at Prakash Nagar, Yerraguntia Town & Mandal, Kadapa District. Eduga Madhu @ Madhusudhana Reddy,, S/o. Lakshmi Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Hindu, Driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No: AP28-Z- 3835 Proddatur Depot., R/at Housing Board Colony, Korrapadu Road, Proddatur Town & Mandal, Kadapa District 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.ACT praying that the High court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated: 25.01.2017 in M.V.O.P. No: 85/2016 on the file of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Kadapa. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Aravala RamaRao ( SC FOR APSRTC ) for the Appellant and Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy for the Respondent No.1&2, and none appeared for respondent 3. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal is be and hereby Dismissed. 2. That compensation awarded by the MACT Rs. 18,91,248/- is modified to Rs.19,11,248/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 3. That enhanced part of compensation of Rs.20,000/- is apportioned equally among all the claimants. 4. That compensation amount awarded shall be deposited within a period of six (06) weeks from now, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited. 5. That there shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1^ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Kadapa. 2. Three CD Copies YM 1 HIGH COURT AHHS.J DATED:09/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.920 of 2017 p 11, )UN tT'“ •S' THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAI FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 920 OF 2017 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.ACT praying that the High court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated; 25.01.2017 in M.V.O.P. No; 85/2016 on the file of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Kadapa. Between: APSRTC, Kadapa Dist, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Near RTC Bus Stand, Kadapa City, Kadapa District. ...APPELLANT AND 1. N Vijayamma , W/o. Late Nallaballe Naganna @ Seemon, Aged about 36 years, Caste by S.C, House Maker, R/o. D. No; 2-20, K. Thimmapuram Village, Muddanur Mandal, Kadapa District. Presently R/at Near Mariyapuram Church, Mariyapuram, Kadapa City, Kadapa District. 2. Nallaballe Nagamma @ Avula Nagamma, W/o. Avula Madhubabu, D/o. Late Nallaballe Naganna, Aged about 20 years. House Wife, Case by S.C, R/at Prakash Nagar, Yerraguntia Town & Mandal, Kadapa District. 3. Eduga Madhu @ Madhusudhana Reddy, S/o. Lakshmi Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Hindu, Driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No; AP28-Z- 3835 Proddatur Depot., R/at Housing Board Colony, Korrapadu Road Proddatur Town & Mandal, Kadapa District ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: Sri. A.RamaRao ( SC FOR APSRTC ) Counsel for the Respondents; Sri. D Kodandarami Reddy The Court made the following Judgment: 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.920 of 2017 JUDGMENT: One N. Nagaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) suffered death due to the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.07.2015. His mother and 1. sister claiming as legal representatives and dependents filed M.V.O.P.No.85 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prin cipal District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the learned MACT”) claiming a compensation of Rs.20,96,140/- and the learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,91,248/-. Feeling aggrieved by the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded, A.P.S.R.T.C./Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT i.e. owner of the bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3835 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle”) and employer of the driver of the offending vehicle, filed the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as 2. the claimants and the Respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT. Case of the claimants! 3. The deceased was aged about 20 years; hale and healthy; working gang man; earning around Rs. 18,000/- per month and contributing the same for as the claimants. 4. On the fateful day i.e. on 30.07.2015 while the deceased was proceeding on the motor cycle near K. Timmapuram Village on Muddanur-Yerrag untia main road at about 07;30 P.M., the offending vehicle was parked on the middle of the road without taking any precautions or indicators, since the road being busy and sometimes vehicles do come in opposite direction. Due to flash in head lights, the deceased could not identify the wrongly parked offending vehicle and dashed the offending vehicle, whereby he sustained injuries. Another person by name N. Raja, was coming behind the deceased on a motor cycle, and he has also hit the stones, fell down and sustained injuries. One Dilip, who was coming in his car along with one S. Prabhakar and Ravi witnessed the accident. Soon after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Dr.Balanagi Reddy Hospital, Muddanur and from there shifted to a private Hospital at Proddatur and from there to RIMS But the deceased could not survive and succumbed to Hospital, Kadapa. injuries. 5. The accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the offending vehicle by its driver. A case in Crime No. 109 of 2015 was registered and later charge sheet was also filed against him. Due to the demise of the deceased the 3 claimants lost all hopes of life including financial support from the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation. 6. Respondent No.2, before the learned MACT, the driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. Case of Respondent No.1 / A.P.S.R.T.C: The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in parking the vehicle, age, occupation, income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants and loss of dependency. 8. The deceased could have avoided the accident and his negligence is the sole cause for the accident. Therefore, the liability if any is to be apportioned and that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and in any event Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: i) Whether the accident took place on 30.07.2015 at about 07:30 a.m. at Thimmapuram bus stop on Yerraguntia to Muddanur main road, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3835 resulting death of the deceased by name Nallaballe Nagaiah? ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation, if so to what extent, and from which of the respondents? iii) To what relief? 7. % 4 10. Evidence before the learned MACT: Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1; N. Vijayamma Claimant No.1 P.W.2: N. Raja Eye witness to the accident. Assistant Engineer, RTPP, Muddanur P.W.3: M. Sreenivasulu Reddy PW.4: P. Jagan Mohan Reddy Railway Contractor RW.1; E. Madhu Driver of the offending vehicle Documentary evidence Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2: Attested copy of inquest report. Ex.A3;Attested postmortem certificate. Ex.A4; Attested copy of charge sheet Ex.X1; Authorisation letter Ex.X2;Attested copy of form of pay particulars of July, 2015. Ex.X3; Attested copy of form of Bank Ex.X4; Address of the firm. On behalf of the petitioner(s). of copy Findings of the learned MACT: a) On the point of negligence: There is no dispute about the accident, evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 supports the accident and negligence. The evidence of RW.1, driver of the offending vehicle shows that due to mechanical defect, the vehicle was stopped by the side of the road. However, 11. 12. 0 5 his evidence is that the stones are placed indicating the parking and the deceased hitting against the stones. PW.2, the eye witness to the accident who was travelling along with the 13. deceased in another motor cycle, has stated that the deceased was travelling in normal speed and flash light of vehicles coming from opposite direction also caused the deceased to hit the stationed bus and wrong parking of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. Therefore, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is fit to be accepted. b) On the point of quantum of compensation: 14. Income of deceased shown by the claimants at Rs. 12,137/- per month. He is a bachelor. PW.3 deposed about the income and Ex.XI to Ex.X4 are the documents indicating the salary of the deceased at Rs. 13,437/-. As per PW.3 the deceased was a contract employee, getting net salary of Rs. 12,560/-. 50% of the income is to be added towards future prospects, then the income comes at Rs. 18,840/-. If 50% is deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased, Rs.9,420/- is the contribution. On application of the multiplier ‘18’ the entitlement of claimants comes to Rs.20,34,720/- but 10% is to be deducted towards tax, whereby the amount comes to Rs. 18,31,248/-. Further, the claimants are entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, .Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenditure Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation, whereby the total entitlement of and claimants comes to Rs.18,91,248/-. 6 Arguments in tho appeal: i For the Apoellanf- 15. The negligence of the deceased i - in riding the motor cycle apportionment note of contributory negligence of liability is necessary by taking deceased. There is on the part of the income of the deceased and prospects. The compensation awarded no strong basis to accept the adding of 50% towards future under the are not in tune with the law and heads of funeral expenditure the compensation awarded i For the claimants- 16(i) The quantum of (ii) Findings on negligence (iii) There is no bar for at this appellate stage. Perused the record. Thoughtful advanced by the both sides. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are; 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated the exclusive driver or whether there part of the deceased? and loss of estate IS excessive. compensation awarded requires enhancement, are proper, awarding more compensation than what claimed even 17. consideration given to the arguments 18. 30.07.2015 has occurred due negligence/wrong parking of the offending vehicle to by its was negligence or contribution of negligence on the 7 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what quantum and what is the liability of the Respondents? 3) Whether the compensation of Rs.18,91,248/- awarded by the learned MACT with interest at 7.5% per annum is just and adequate or require any interference either by way of enhancement or reduction, if so to what tune? 4) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case,, the claimants shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation^ in para 15 observed as follows; In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be 20. 15. view 2009 (13) see 530 8 possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.. ” Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushma vs. Nitm Ganapati Rangole and others^ has extensively considered the defence of contributory negligence where failure to avoid collision by taking some extra precaution and whether the same will 21. amount to negligence, apart from the standard of proof required to be taken into consideration while assessing the negligence. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in para Nos.25 to 38 are found relevant and applicable to the case on hand, particularly with regard to appreciation of the principle as to on whom the negligence lies in respect of a parked vehicle, whether it is on the person who wrongfully parked or the person who dashed such wrongfully parked vehicle and application of the last opportunity rule, the observations are as follows: 25. Common sense requires that no vehicle can be left parked and unattended in the middle of the road as It would definitely be a traffic hazard posing risk to the other road users. 26. We shall briefly refer to the statutory provisions applicable to the situation at hand. 27. A highway or a road is a public place as defined in Section 2(34) of the Act:— ^ (2024) see Online Se 2284: 2024 (6) ALD (Se) 0' 9 “2(34) “public place” means a road, street, way or other place, whether a have a right of access, and at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;” 28. Section 121 of the Act provides that the driver of a motor vehicle shall make such signals and, on such occasions, as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 29. Section 122 of the Act provides that no person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any “public place” In such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances so as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers. 30. Section 126 of the Act provides that no person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place. 31. Section 127(2) of the Act provides that where any abandoned, unattended, wrecked, burnt or partially dismantled vehicle Is creating a traffic hazard, because of its position in relation to the public place, or Its physical appearance is causing the impediment to the traffic, its immediate removal from the public place by a towing service may be authorised by a police officer having jurisdiction. 32. Regulation 15 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 which were prevailing on the date of the incident provides that every driver of a motor vehicle shall park the vehicle in such a way that it does not cause or Is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users. It casts a duty on the drivers of a motor vehicle stating that the vehicle shall not be parked at or near a road crossing or in a main road. 33. These legal provisions leave no room for doubt that the person in control of the offending truck acted in sheer violation of law while thoroughfare or not, to which the public includes any place or stand 10 -.N. abandoning the vehicle in the middle of the road and that too without taking precautionary measures like switching on the parking lights reflectors or any other appropriate steps to warn the other vehicles travelling on the highway Had the accident taken place during the daytime or if the place of accident was well illuminated, then perhaps b oar driver could have been held equally responsible for the accident by applying the rule of last opportunity. But the fact that there was no illumination at the accident site either natural artificial. Since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the road in clear violation of the applicable rules burden to prove that the placement of the said was beyond human control and that remains or and regulations, vehicle as such appropriate precautionary while leaving the vehicle in that position were essentially on the person in control of the offending truck. However evidence was led by the person having control over the said truck in this regard Thus, the entire responsibility for the negligence leading the accident was of the truck owner/driver. the measures taken ] no to 34. In view of the above discussion, the view expressed by the High Court that if the driver of the car had been vigilant and would have driven the vehicle carefully by following the traffic rules, the accident may have been avoided is presumptuous on the face of the record the same is based purely on conjectures and surmises. Nothing record indicates that the car was being driven at an excessively high speed or that the driver failed to follow the traffic rules. Court recorded an Incongruous finding that if the offending truck not been parked on the highway, the accident happened even if the as on The High had would not have was being driven at a very high speed. Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court on the issue of contributory negligence is riddled with inherent contradictions and paradoxical. car IS 35. The Courts below erred in concluding that it is a case of contributory negligence, because in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the 11 accident or damage should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged. 36. In the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, this Court while referring to a decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd., went on to hold that:— .. where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. ” 37. In the very same judgment, this Court also referred to and approved the view taken in Swadling v. Cooper, as below;— “Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extra ordinary precaution, does not in Itself constitute negligence.” (emphasis supplied) 38. A three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Archit Saini v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, had the occasion to consider an identical fact evidence available on record, it ivas held:— “8. After having perused the evidence of PW7, Site Map (Ext. P-45) and the detailed analysis undertaken by the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the approach of the High Court in reversing the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 has been very casual, if not cryptic and perverse. Indeed, the appeal before the High Court is required to be decided on fact and law. That, however, would not permit the High Court to casually overturn the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. /\s is evident from the analysis done by the Tribunal, it is a well-considered opinion and a plausible view. The High Court has not adverted to any specific scenario, and after analysing the 12 reason as to why the view taken by the Tribunal incorrect or not supported by the evidence well settled that the nature of proof required in cases concerning accident claims is qualitatively different from the one in criminal cases, was on record. It Is which must be beyond any reasonable doubts. The Tribunal applied the correct test the analysis of the evidence before it. Notably, the High Court has not doubted the evidence of PW7 in as being unreliable nor has it discarded his version that the driver of the Maruti Car could not spot the parked Gas Tanker due to the flashlights of the oncoming traffic from the front side. Further, the Tribunal also adverted to the legal presumption against the driver of the Gas Tanker of having parked his vehicle in a negligent manner in the middle of the road. The Site Plan (Ext. P-45) reinforces the version of PW7 that the Truck (Gas Tanker) was parked in the middle of the road but the High Court opined to the contrary without assigning any reason whatsoever. In our view, the Site Plan (Ext. P- 45) filed along with the chargesheet does not support the finding recorded by the High Court that the Gas Tanker not parked In the middle of the road. Notably, the High Court has also not doubted the claimant's plea that the Gas Tanker/offending vehicle was parked without any indicator or parking lights. The fact that PW7 who was standing the opposite side of the road at a distance of about 70 feet, could see the Gas Tanker parked on the other side of the road does not discredit his version that the Maruti Car was on coming from the opposite side could not spot the Gas Tanker due to flashlights of the oncoming traffic from the front side. It is not In dispute that the road is a busy road. In the cross-examination, neither has any attempt been made to discredit the version of PW7 nor has any suggestion been made that no vehicle with flashlights on was coming from the opposite direction of the parked Gas Tanker at the relevant time. 13 / 9. Suffice it to observe that the approach of the High Court in reversing the well-considered finding recorded by the Tribunal oh the material fact, which was supported by the evidence on record, cannot be countenanced. 10. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the said finding of the High Court. As a result, the appellants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation as determined by the High Court in its entirety without any deduction towards contributory negligence. In other words, we restore the finding of the Tribunal rendered on issue No. 1 against the respondents and hold that respondent no. 1 negligently parked the Gas Tanker/offending vehicle in the middle of the road without any indicator or parking lights. ” Analysis of Evidence: 22. PW.1 / Nallaballe Vijayamma, Claimant No.1, mother of the deceased deposed that while the deceased and one Nallaballe Raja were travelling on their respective motor cycles, due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle the accident occurred. She has added that one Dileep along with Soma Prabhakar and Ravi coming in a car witnessed the accident and shifted the injured to the hospital. During her cross examination it was suggested to her that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and flash lights of the vehicles coming in opposite direction to the motor cycle in which the deceased was travelling are the cause for the accident but she has denied the same. 14 23. PW.2 / Nallaballe Raja, informant under Ex.AI-FIR has categorically stated about the occurrence of accident that the offending vehicle was left on the middle of the road, due to defects. The driver of the offending vehicle did not taken any measures to avoid the accident. The stones are placed in disorderly manner. He has stated that he had hit the Stones placed in disorderly manner and suffered injuries. or caution by placing indicators and safety care 24. The evidence of RW.1, the driver of the offending vehicle is that due to mechanical defect he has stopped the vehicle by the side of the the stones, showing dim and dip lights etc. During cross examination he has denied the negligence suggested but admitted that charge sheet was laid against him. of lapse in averting the accident on the part of the motor cyclist. The same cannot be considered as negligence particularly in the context of: 1) the time of accident was 07:30 P.M. road and placed 25. to him Even if there is some sort 2) the offending vehicle was stopped in the middle of the road 3) PW.2 is an independent witness stated about the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in wrongly parking. 4) The proposition of law as to understanding and appreciation the allegation of negligence in respect of the stationed vehicle is addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushtna vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and others case mentioned above. 15 In view of the legal and factual position, the defence of the appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C. found not tenable. Therefore, the point framed is answered against the appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C. concluding that the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and that contribution of negligence on the part of the deceased is not proved. 26. Point Nos.2 and 3: Since the point Nos.2 and 3 are interlinked, they are being discussed and 27. answered together. Quantum of Compensation: Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- a) Adoption of Multiplier. Multiplicand and Calculation: 28(i). Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sar/a Verma (Smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.^ vide paragraph Nos. 18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following; 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. ^ 2009 (6) see 121 16 28(ii). Hon’ble Apex Court directed compensation, they are; Step No.1: certain steps while determining the Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the she should have contributed to the dependents income of the deceased he / 3nd the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personai living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: to the table provided Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral amount towards conventional heads expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised, b) Adding of future prospects: 29(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others^ guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment. case 50% '’2017(16) see 680 17 where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. 29(ii). The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of seif employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years. Further, adding of at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively is recommended by Flon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 30. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others^, Flon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. ^(2018) 18 see 130 18 d) Just Compensation: 31. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what Is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 see 274 : 2003 SCC (eri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] it was held as follows: (See p. 280) ’ “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the eiaims Tribunal to ‘make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just’. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation Is that it must be ‘just’. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation. ” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) i 213J 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and It has become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. e) Adding of future prospects in respect of self employed, non-earnina group and notional income group : now or 32. In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors.\ the Hon’ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed that In respect of self- (2013) 9 see 54 U202I) 17 SCC 148 19 employed or in respect of non-earning or not doing any job persons also there is no bar of adding future raise of income or adopting notional Income. Analysis of Evidence: PW.3 / one M. Sreenivasulu Reddy, Assistant Engineer, RTPP, Muddanur 33. deposed as follows; "Our Execute Engineer received summons to produce documents and to give evidence. He authorized me to give evidence by producing documents. Ex.X.1 is authorization letter. Today I am producing Attested copy form of pay particulars of deceased Nagaiah for the month of July, 2015, Attested copy of form submitted to the Bank for the month of July, 2015 and letter of Executive Engineer along \A/ith address of the forms. Those are Exs.X2 to X4. Deceased joined in the Rites company limited as a Trally Man, in the year 2000. We have given maintenance contract to Rites Company and it is a Central Government Company. He had drawn gross salary of Rs. 13,437/- for the month of July, 2015. There were all the statutory deductions for the salary of the deceased, like a Government Employee. He worked as an employee from 2000 to till his death. ” PW.4 / one P. Jaganmohan Reddy, Railway Contractor deposed as 34. follows: “/ received summons from the Court to give evidence. The deceased namely Nagaiah worked under me, as a Trolly Man. As on the date of 30.7.2015, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.12,560/-. Ex.X.3 was issued by me. Ex.X.2 was also issued by me. As per Ex.X.4 contractor work entrusted to me. ” 20 35. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 drives to infer that joined in the Rites Company Limited the company was given and deceased the deceased was a Trolly Man. Maintenance contract to as was getting gross salary of Rs.13,437/- and net salary of Rs. 12,560/-. Both witnesses, PW.3 and PW.4 referred to Ex.X2 to X4 documents. Ex.X2 is employee’s salary details for the month of July, 2015 indicating payment of salary of Rs. 13,492/- to the deceased (N. Nagaiah) against entry No.35. 36. 37. Ex.X3 is Register of Wages maintained by i.e. P.Jaganmohan Reddy mentioned against entry No.35 discloses Rs. 12,560/-. PW.3 has stated about the the contractor payment of same. 38. Ex.X4 is the letter indicating that the Trollymen, N. Nagayya permanent employee of the department and his Service Register, Salary particulars etc. are not maintained. Contract work and contractor was engaged the services of the deceased. M/s.RITES Ltd., Secunderabad might be having the Further, the RTTP Management has no involvement in the case. In the light of the Ex.X2 to Ex.X4, the income taken by the learned MACT at Rs. 12,560/- as the basis cannot be found fault. As per Ex.A2-lnquest Report, the age of the deceased is about ‘2T years. He was unmarried. Further, he is was not the was entrusted to the company Sub contractor of necessary particulars. 39. 21 not a self employed one but working for some organization or under some contract. Therefore, the calculation adopted as to adding of future prospects, deduction of 50% being unmarried and adoption of Multiplier ‘18’ are all in tune with the precedential guidance mentioned above. Against the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenditure, the learned MACT has granted Rs.25,000/- each, whereas Rs. 15,000/- is advised by the Hon’bie Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others case, cited above. Claimant No.2, sister of the 40. Therefore, the same is fit to be scaled down. deceased not entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of consortium. However, Claimant No.1, mother of the deceased is entitled for loss of filial consortium at Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT require modification accordingly. Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal: 41 (i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal The legal position as to powers of the or cross appeal by the claimants. Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross 22 Objections was considered by the Division National Insurance Company Limited M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: Bench of this Court in a case between E. Suseelamma and others^ in while answering point No.3 framed therein vide. 50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents if on the face of the award iignt of the evidence are entitled , or even in the ''^^ord, and keeping in view the land c/a/manfs being entitled to just compensation and It also being the statutory duty of the CourtfTribunal to award iud oompensaUon, this Court in the exercise of the appeaTtepZlsf enhance the amount of compensation even in theZsenL ofanoeal or cross-objection by the claimants. can 41 (ii). Observations made by the Division Insurance Company Limited Bench of this Court in National vs. E. Suseelamma and others (8 supra) in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court case are in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others^ 41 (iii). In Surekha and Others Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21. vs. Santosh and Others (9 supra) case, in Civil 01.2020, three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where 2023 see Online AP 1725 ^2021) 16 see 467 23 the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made. 42. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows: Fixed by this Appellate Court Granted by the MACT Head SI. No. Rs.18,31,248/- Rs.18,31,248/- 10% of tax has to be deducted from the total amount 1. Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/- Loss of estate 2. Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/- Funeral expenses 3. Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Transport charges 4. Rs.40,000/- -Nil- Loss of consortium 5. Rs.19,11,248/- Rs.18,91,248/- Total: For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the point Nos.2 and 3 are answered concluding that the claimants are entitled for compensation 43. of Rs.19,11,248/-. Point No.4: For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1, 2 and 44. 3, Point No.4 is answered as follows; In the result. The appeal is dismissed. (i) >>7;? 24 (ii) However, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs. 18,91,248/- is modified to Rs.19,11,248/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The enhanced part of compensation of Rs.20,000/- is apportioned equally among all the claimants. The compensation amount awarded shall be deposited within a period of six (06) weeks from now, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited. There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. (iii) (iv) (V) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Kadapa. 2. One CC to Sri. Aravala RamaRao ( SC FOR APSRTC ) [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. D Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies YM nm HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 JUDGMENT +DECREE MACMA.No.920 of 2017 THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED