APHC010211962008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, t The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A No: 1017 of 2008 Between: Akula Ananthalakshmi & Nettam Sundaraiah and a Counsel for the appellant 1. M Suguna Counsel for the respondents 1. Vijaya Kumar Potturi The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred under Section Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 27.06.2005 in O.P.No.371 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, granting compensation of Rs.6,00,000/ interest @ 9% per annum from the 21.06.2002 till the date of realization. 02. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 12.07.2016, it was recorded that t got abated for not taking steps to bring the legal representatives on the death of the 1st respondent as per the order dated 12.07.2016. The IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the 27th day of March, 2025 Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A No: 1017 of 2008 Akula Ananthalakshmi & 4 others ...Appellants and and another ...Respondent ppellants: Counsel for the respondents: Vijaya Kumar Potturi The Court made the following: This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles against the award and decree dated 27.06.2005 in O.P.No.371 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Tribunal, Nellore, granting compensation of Rs.6,00,000/ interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 21.06.2002 till the date of realization. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned respondent. As per the docket order dated 12.07.2016, it was recorded that the appeal against the 1st respondent got abated for not taking steps to bring the legal representatives on the respondent as per the order dated 12.07.2016. The [3311] ...Appellants ...Respondents 173 of the Motor Vehicles against the award and decree dated 27.06.2005 in O.P.No.371 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Tribunal, Nellore, granting compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with date of filing of the petition i.e., Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned As per the docket order dated respondent got abated for not taking steps to bring the legal representatives on the respondent as per the order dated 12.07.2016. The 2 MACMA.No.1017 of 2008 learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 1st respondent had not contested the claim before the Tribunal and remained ex parte. As per Order XXII, rule 4 (4) CPC, the Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place. As per Order XXII, rule 11, the rules regarding the plaintiff and defendant in suit shall be applicable to appellant and respondent. The Motor Vehicles Act is a social welfare legislation and application of strict rules of procedure which hamper the object of the Act can be avoided. If appeal against the owner of the crime vehicle is abated, the case against the 2nd respondent / insurer cannot be proceeded. As such, the order dated 12.07.2016 to treat the appeal as abated in default to implead legal representatives of the deceased /1st respondent is set aside exempting such impleadment. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to make endorsement of exempting impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased / 1st respondent. 03. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding amount lower than the amount assessed as compensation payable to the claimants merely on the ground that the claimants asked only Rs.6,00,000/-; that the amount deducted towards personal expenses is high; that no amount was added towards future prospects; that no compensation for loss of parental and filial consortium was granted; that the amount of compensation for funeral expenses is very low; and that the rate of interest awarded is low. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the Tribunal had 3 MACMA.No.1017 of 2008 rightly awarded the amount of compensation and that the award and decree do not required interference in the appeal. 04. The appellants / claimants sought Rs.6,00,000/- compensation on account of the death of Akula Venkateswarlu (in short ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.02.2002 when he was hit by a lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 2844 while he was going on cycle. The 1st appellant is the wife. The 2nd to 4th appellants are daughters and the 5th appellant is the son of the deceased. The deceased was working as AR Head Constable. The claim was opposed by the 2nd respondent who is the insurer of the lorry owned by the 1st respondent who remained ex parte. The claimants stated that he was earning Rs.11,000/- per month, however, they filed Ex.A3 / salary certificate of the deceased which shows his income as Rs.8,752/- per month. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 05. Basing on Ex.A3, the Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased @ Rs.1,05,024/- and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. By applying multiplier 11, the loss of dependency is calculated @ Rs.7,70,176/-. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was determined towards loss of estate comprising of loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of amenities to the 1st to 5th petitioners; Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner; and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal arrived at a total of Rs.7,97,176/- as the amount of compensation which is payable, however, the amount awarded was limited to Rs.6,00,000/- which was claimed by the petitioners. 06. Aggrieved by the award, the claimants preferred the appeal stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount of 4 MACMA.No.1017 of 2008 Rs.7,97,176/-, which was arrived at by the Tribunal, instead of restricting it to Rs.6,00,000/- and that the Tribunal ought to have granted interest @12% per annum, instead of 9%. However, the appellants sought Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation in the appeal by increasing the claim from Rs.6,00,000/-. 07. It is settled law that irrespective of the amount of compensation claimed, the Tribunal is competent to award just and reasonable amount as compensation. As such, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.7,97,176/-, instead of restricting the amount to Rs.6,00,000/-. 08. Since the appellants are seeking Rs.9,00,000/-, it is to be examined whether they are entitled to amount more than what was awarded by the Tribunal. 09. Though the Tribunal deducted the amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it did not add future prospects. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others1, 15% of the income shall be added as future prospects. Therefore, since the deceased was aged about 52 years, by adding 15% of his income, the annual income is Rs.1,20,778 (Rs.1,05,025+ Rs.15,753). 10. As there are five dependants on the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th, instead of 1/3rd, of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, on such deduction, the annual contribution to the family is Rs.90,585/- (Rs.1,20,780 - Rs.30,195). Since multiplier 11 is applicable, the total loss of dependency is Rs.9,96,435/- (Rs.90,585/- x 11). 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 MACMA.No.1017 of 2008 11. Though the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner alone, the children and the parents of the deceased also are entitled to compensation towards loss of parental and filial consortium. Therefore, each one of them is entitled to Rs.10,000/- (Rs.40,000/-). 12. The amount of compensation granted towards funeral expenses @Rs.2,000/- is far low and it ought to be Rs.15,000/-. 13. Thus, in total, the amount of compensation payable is Rs.10,76,435/- (Rs.9,96,435/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000/-). 14. Since the Tribunal has to award interest at the rate prevailing in the nationalized banks as on the date of the accident, interest @ 9% per annum as was awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate in the present case. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.10,76,435/- (Rupees ten lakhs seventy six thousand four hundred thirty five only) with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant shall pay the necessary court fee on the amount of Rs.1,76,435/- (rupees one lakh seventy six thousand four hundred and thirty five only) before the Tribunal. On proof of such payment only, the decree shall be drafted. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this appeal, shall stand closed. ___________________ Dt.27.03.2025 B.S.BHANUMATHI, J PNV