C’V APHC010003972007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI jVIOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1568 OF 2007 Between: 1. Bellamkonda Bhujanga Rao, S/o.Late Perumalla Das, aged about 58 years. Dependant, R/o.Srirama Nagar, Padala Village, Near Market Yard, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. Bellamkonda Sumathi, W/o.Bhujanga Rao, aged about 53 years. Housewife, R/o.Srirama Nagar, Padala Village, Near Market Yard, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Gatti Megharaju, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 29 years. Driver of TVS Victor bearing No.AP 7N 7922, Padala Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. P.Appa Rao, S/o.Appalaswamy, aged about 35 years. Owner of TVS Victor bearing No.AP 7 N 7922, Venkatapuram Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited Manager, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. (R2 dismissed for default vide Court Order, dated 08.07.2016) rep., by Divisional ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Decree, dated 29.11.2006 passed in MVOP No.710 of 2004 Chairman. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal West Godavari District at Eluru. Act, against the Order and on the file of the -cum-l Additional District Judge, This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds appeal, the Award and Decree of the Trial Court petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri of and material papers in the Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, Advocate for Appellants, and of Sri Amancharla1 Satish Babu, Advocate for Respondent No.3, and none appeared for Respondent No.1. 1. That the Appeal be and enhancing the amount of compensation; the same is hereby allowed in part 2. That the claimants be and hereby of Rs.2,97,100/-: 3. That the respondents 1 and 2 be are entitled to a total compensation and hereby are directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,05,400/- jointly and severally to the appellants/claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of payment; 4. That the enhanced compensation shall be paid, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 5. That the appeal against the 3 respondent be and hereby is dismissed; and 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal. Sd/- M PRABHAK^R RAO ASSISTANT ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2. Two CD Copies BSV sree high court DATED;07/08/2025 S 02 SEP 2025 S ^CurrenlSeciion . 4 decree MACMA no. 1568 OF 2007 allowing the MACMA IN WITHOUT COSTS PART APHC010003972007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST / TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPFAl NO: 2^ o T J- 1568 OF 2007 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree, dated 29.11.2006 passed in MVOP No.710 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. Between: 1. Beltamkonda Bhujanga Rao, S/o.Late Perumalla Das, aged about 58 years. Dependant, R/o.Srirama Nagar, Padala Village Yard, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. Bellamkonda Sumathi, W/o.Bhujanga Rao, Housewife, R/o.Srirama Nagar, Padala Village, Near Market Yard Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. Near Market aged about 53 years. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Gatti Megharaju, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged about 29 years. Driver of TVS Victor bearing No.AP 7N 7922, Padala Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. is- t \ i. ♦ r / 2. P.Appa Rao, S/o.Appalaswamy, aged about 35 years, Owner of TVS Victor bearing No.AP 7 N 7922, Venkatapuram Village, Eluru Mandal West Godavari District. 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, rep., by Divisional Manager, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. (R2 dismissed for default vide Court Order, dated 08.07.2016) ...Respondents/Respondents ./ / f > Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2:-- Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri Amancharla Satish Babu The Court made the following: i 1 y APHC0100039720&7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ [3311] Thursday, the seventh day of August, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No.1568 of 2007 Between: Bellamkonda Bhujanga Rao & others ...Appellants and Gatti Megharaju and others Counsel for the appellants: ...Respondents ^ ■ I .EIuru Sesha Mahesh Babu Counsel for the respondents: 1 .Amancharla Satish Babu 2.T.Ramulu The Court made the following: it" & 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.lSeS of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree, dated 29.11.2006, in O.P.No.710 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, West Godavari, at Eluru. 2. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows; The claimants are the parents of Sri Bellamkonda Perumallaa Dasu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). On 14.05.2004, while the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on T.V.S. Victor motor cycle bearing No.AP 7 N7922 of the 1"* respondent, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1®' respondent. He died while undergoing treatment on 24.05.2004 as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident. The deceased was aged about 19 at the time of the accident. He was earning Rs.3,000/- per month tailor and spending the same for the petitioners who were a. years as a dependents on hipi. The Tadepalligudem Town police station registered a case in Crime No.161 of 2004 under Section 338 I.P.C. and later it The claimants sought altered to Section 304-A I.P.C. compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and costs. was < The 1®* respondent remained ex parte. respondent / owner of the moped filed written statement denying the allegations and further stating that the vehicle was insured with the 3^^^ respondent and therefore, he is not personally liable to pay compensation. b. nd The 2 c. I- 3 bsb/j M.A.C.M.A.No.1568 of 2007 d. The 3' respondent filed written statement denying and also the liabilrty and further stating that the claimants all the facts asserted by them and also that valid driving licence as on the date of the the allegations have to prove respondent had a It was further not cover the risk of a pillion pay any compensation. St the 1 accident. contended that the policy of insurance did rider and therefore, it is not liable to 4. In support of their claim, the claimants and exhibits A1 to A8 were marked. examined PWs 1 and 2 PVV1 is the first petitioner and PW2, Sri Reddy Yallarao, is an eyewitness to the accident. Exhibit A1 is the attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.161 of 2004, attested copy of altered F.I.R. in exhibit A2 is the crime No.161 of 2004, exhibit A3 is the attested copy of charge sheet, exhibit A4 is the attested copy of P.M. report, exhibit A5 is the attested copy of M.V.I. report, exhibit A6 is the bunch of medical bills worth Rs. 12,970/- exhibit A7 is the discharge summary of D.Perumalla Das and exhibit A8 is the original C.T scan report. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 Sri C.V.D.Prasad, was examined and exhibit B1, copy of policy of Crime vehicle No.AP 07 N 7922 was marked. 5. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the accident in of the 1 a compensation of Rs. 1,91,700/- petition till the date respondents to pay respondent / question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving respondent. The Tribunal awarded St with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the of realization and costs and directed the 1 St nd and 2 The petition against the 3'’'^ the same to the claimants. insurance company was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the award and the decree the claimants mainly contending that the this appeal was filed by insurance company shallf. be 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1568 of 2007 made liable to pay the compensation as the seating capacity of the vehicle is two as per exhibit B1, insurance policy, which was categorically admitted by RW1, the employee of the insurance company. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it was contended that the Tribunal erroneously assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/- instead of Rs.3,000/- per month and also that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation of Rs.12,900/- under medical bills marked as exhibit A6 and that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect. In spite of service of notice, the respondent has not appeared before this Court. Moreover, the respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal as well. The appeal against the 2'"^' respondent was dismissed for default as per the order, dated 08.07.2016. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 3'^'^ respondent. 8. The main grievance of the claimants is dismissal of the claim against the insurance company. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the insurance company is liable as the policy of insurance under exhibit B1 shows seating capacity of the vehicle as two. 10. ■. .■ On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the insurance company is not liable to cover the risk unless separate premium is paid for a pillion rider, whereas, in the present case, the premium paid is only for driver-cum-owner and that the Tribunal had rightly considered the contentions of both parties on this aspect and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. i \ 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.N0.156S of 2007 12. Merely because the seating capacity is two for the vehicle insured, it does not mean that the liability under the policy would two persons under the Act policy. A separate premium is required to be paid for a pillion rider and in the absence of such liability to the insurance company. It cannot be violation of term of policy so as to fasten liability on the i - company to first pay and then recover the amount from the insured was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. As such, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the Tribunal regarding the liability of the respondent. cover premium, there is no even treated as mere insurance as findings of the 13. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier applicable to the deceased instead of the multiplier applicable to the age of the 2 nd petitioner / mother. As such, ‘18’ is the relevant multiplier as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ors\ and After applying the multiplier ‘18’, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs. 14,400 X 18 = 2,59,200/- apart, the amount of compensation granted @ Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate is too low and as such, the compensation under this enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- as the claim was assessed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The amount of compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses is too low and the same can be raised to Rs. 10,000/-. That head is awarded Since the claim made for medical expenditure under exhibit A6 for Rs. 12,900/- is not on high side in view of the injuries suffered by the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the same 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 6 BSBJ M.A.C.M.A.No.1568 of 2007 instead of dismissing it by too much rigid approach as the claim covered by the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation. » . SI. No. Head Amount awarded (Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 2,59,200=00 2 Loss of estate 15,000=00 3 Funeral expenses 10,000=00 Medical Bills 4 12,900=00 Total 2,97,100=00 Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,97,100/-. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,05,400/- jointly and severally to the appellants / claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of payment. The enhanced compensation shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 14. f ■ Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the amount of compensation while dismissing the appeal against the 3'”'^ respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall §tand closed. 15. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, Advocate [OPUC] To, ■"V'' One CC to Sri T. Ramulu, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of A.P at Amaravati. Two CD Copies 4. 5. 6. BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2025 JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA NO. 1568 OF 2007 ALLOWING THE MACMA IN PART WITHOUT COSTS