IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.25 of 2019 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Divisional Office, Dwaraka Towers, 7 roads Junction, Kadapa. ...Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND 1. Palem Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Subbarayudu, aged 48 years, R/o. Gandhi Street, Diguvapet, Siddavatam Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. 2. Palem Subbarayudu, S/o. P.Narayana, aged 53 years, R/o. Gandhi Street, Diguvapet, Siddavatam Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondents/Claimants 3. Madhu Educational Society, I.N.A., Sri Sai College of IT and Management, rep. by K.Suryanaryana Reddy, S/o.not known, R/o. Buddayapalli Village, Kadapa City. .. .Respondent/Respondent-1 4. B.Murali, S/o. B.Pedda Narasimhulu, age- Major, D.No. 14/205, Sydapuram, Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapur District. .. .Respondent/Respondent-2 (R-3 and 4 not necessary) filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by MVOP No.692 of 2014, dated file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-Family Appeal " the decree and judgment passed in . 20.09.2018, on the Court -cum -VI Additional District Judge at Kadapa, Kadapa District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Petition, the Petition and upon Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri J Janaki Rami Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- V. SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-Family Court -cum -VI Additional District Judge at Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2. Three CD Copies TK ssb HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.25 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.25 of 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in MVOP No.692 of 2014, dated 20.09.2018, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-Family Court -cum -VI Additional District Judge at Kadapa, Kadapa District. Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager Divisional Office, Dwaraka Towers, 7 roads Junction, Kadapa. ...Appellant/Respondent No.3 AND 1. Palem Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Subbarayudu, aged 48 years, R/o. Gandhi Street, Diguvapet, Siddavatam Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. 2. Palem Subbarayudu, S/o. P.Narayana, aged 53 years, R/o. Gandhi Street, Diguvapet, Siddavatam Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. ... Respondents/Claimants 3. Madhu Educational Society, I.N.A., Sri Sai College of IT and Management, rep. by K.Suryanaryana Reddy, S/o.not known, R/o. Buddayapalli Village, Kadapa City. ... Respondent/Respondent-1 4. B.Murali, S/o. B.Pedda Narasimhulu, age- Major, D.No. 14/205, Sydapuram, Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapur District. ... Respondent/Respondent-2 (R-3 and 4 not necessary) lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the execution of decree and award dated 20.09.2018 in MVOP No.692 of 2014, on the file of MACT-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Kadapa, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri J Janaki Rami Reddy The Court made the foilowing: : Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia 1 vs,j MACMA No.25 of 2019 APHC010007212019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 25/2019 Between: United India Insurance Co Ltd., ...APPELLANT AND Palem Vijaya Kumari and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1 .SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.J JANAKIRAMI REDDY The Court made the following: VS,J ■ MACMA No.25 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal against the order and decree dated 20.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.692 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kadapa whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.21,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Ninety Thousand only) to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/claimants, as against the claim of Rs.30,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Palem Kranthi Kumar in a motor accident that occurred on 05.12.2012. The case of the claimants, in brief, as follows: 02. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Palem Kranthi Kumar. On 05.12.2012, the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider, along with one Srinivasulu Reddy as rider, on the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP04 K 5762 to go to Sidhout and at about 4.30 p.m., when they reached near Old Varun Auto showroom on Rajampet Road in Kadapa, the bus bearing registration No.AP02 V 7186 belonging to the 1®'respondent came from their behind in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, without blowing any horn. and dashed their motorcycle, due to which the deceased and the rider of the said motorcycle fell down on the road and the tyres ,of the said bus ran over the deceased, as a result^ which the deceased VSJ MACMA No.25 of 2019 sustained multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, where he succumbed to injuries on the same day. The Traffic Police registered a case against the driver of the offending bus in Cr. No. 165/2012 and laid charge sheet for the offence under Section 304-Aof IPC. The petitioners contended that the deceased was aged 22 years and was hale and healthy as on the date of accident. It was contended that the deceased was studying M.B.A. first year in Sri Sai IT Management College, Kadapa, and he was a brilliant student and had the accident not occurred, the deceased would have secured a good job and earned more than Rs.50,000/- per month and looked after the claimants during their old age. Due to sudden death of the deceased in the accident, the claimants were subjected to untold agony and deprived of their maintenance. As the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, they claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- payable jointly and severally by the 1®‘ respondent/owner, the 2"'' respondent/insured and the 3^*^ respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex 03. parte. Respondent No.3/insurance company filed written statement resisting the claim of the petitioners and denying the occurrence of the 04. VS,J MACMA No.25 of 2019 offending vehicle' in the alleged contended that the petitioners have accident and involvement of the accident. It was further the owner and i travelling as a pillion rider petition is hit by non-joinder of contended that the rider of the to drive the motor cycle and he not made insurer of the motor cycle on which the deceased was as parties to the claim and hence the necessary parties. It was further motor cycle had no valid driving license accident, but the himself caused the petitioners, in coliusion with respondent No. get unlawful gain, it was further contended that Claimed by the petitioners 1. foisted a false case to the compensation was excessive and exorbitant and hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 05. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial; 2 ty/iether ms seamen, occurred due to rash and negligent ing 0 he driver of bus beering N0.APO2 V 7186 that resulted causing death to the deceased Palem Krantbl Kumar? 2. Whether the petitioners what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” On behalf of the examined and Exs.AI to A14 No.S/lnsurance Company adduced. are entitled for compensation, if so, to and 06. petitioners/claimants, P.Ws. 1 were marked. On behalf of . no oral and documentary evidence tc 4 were respondent was ^S,J MACMA No.25 of 2019 After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.21,90,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. Respondent No.3- Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said compensation amount together with costs and interest within two months from the date of the order. On deposit of the said amount, the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were held entitled to half share each together with interest and costs and permitted to withdraw the same forthwith. 07. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.3/lnsurance Company preferred this appeal only on the quantum of compensation. 08. Learned counsel for the appellant/lnsurance Company contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased, who was a student and non-earning member, at Rs.20,000/- per month. He, therefore, prays that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs interference in this appeal. 09. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is; 11. ^-'"-1 <=•£* VS,J MACMA No.25 of 2019 Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference by this Court? POINT: There is no dispute with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The present appeal is filed solely challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on the ground that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased, who was a student and non-earning member, at Rs.20,000/- per month. 12. As can be seen from the impugned award, the petitioners/ claimants have claimed that the deceased was aged 22 years and had completed B.Sc. Course and was pursuing M.B.A. year as on the date of accident. To prove that the deceased had completed B.Sc. Course, the claimants have filed his original B.Sc. Marks List, marked as Ex.AS. They have also filed Exs.AIO to A12, certificates showing the qualifications of the deceased in Typewriting English Lower Grade, Post Graduate Diploma in Desk Publishing and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications respectively. Taking into account the academic qualifications as well as the technical qualificationsof the deceased and considering his future career prospects- based on those qualifications, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per rnpnth. 13. VS,J MACMA No. 25 of 2019 It is to be noted that in the case of S. Vasanthi v. M/s. Adhiparasakthi Engineering College\ where the deceased was 23 years old and was a qualified engineering graduate and pursuing M.B.A. Degree, the Hon’ble' Supreme Court observed that had the deceased not met with the unfortunate accident, he would have surely drawn a salary equivalent to that of his classmates or at least an amount nearing the said amount and having observed so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enhanced the notional income of the deceased to Rs.30,000/- per month, which in fact was enhanced by the High Court of Judicature at Madras to Rs.10,000/- per month from that of Rs.7,000/- initially awarded by the Tribunal. In the instant case, admittedly, the deceased was 22 years old and had completed B.Sc. Course and also possessed technical qualifications as noted above. In view of the same and in the light of the decision of th6 Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra, this Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal, fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. 14. 15. By taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- would amount to Rs.2,40,000/- 16. per month, his annual income (Rs.20,000 X 12). Upon deducting 50% towards his personal expenses I \ (Rs.2,40,000/- X 50% = Rs.1,20,000/-) and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘18’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 22 years, as " 2022 (6) ALT 14 (SC) vs,l MACMA N0.2S of 2019 per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at Rs.21,60,000/- (Rs. 1,20,000/0 X 18) towards loss of future earnings and dependency, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable and requires no interference. Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, transport and funeral charges, are also just and reasonable and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.21,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The point is answered accordingly. 17. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 2009 ACJ 1298 Sd/-V. SAVITHRI GOWRl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION //TRUE COPY// pv OFFICER To 1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-Family Court -cum -VI Additional District Judge at Kadapa, Kadapa District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri J Janakirami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Three CD Copies TK ssb 'n- ' ■ T'- HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 C>y^ JUDGMENT + DECREE ^ 2 3 JUL 2025 MACMA.No.25 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS