APHC010403722012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1188 OF 2012 Between: 1. Kondeti Venkateswaramma, W/o. Parasuramaiah, Aged 39 years, R/o. Kunderu Village Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District 2. Kondeti Rattamma, W/o. Subbaiah, Aged 67 years, R/o. Kunderu Village Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District 3. Kondeti Siva Nagamalleswari, D/o. Parasuramaiah, Aged 22 years, R/o. Kunderu Village Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Ammisetti Ranga Rao, S/o. Ramaiah Owner of Lorry ABG 6507 R/o. Kunchinipalli village Tadepalli mandal, Guntur District 2. The National Insurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, ELuru ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03-12-2010 in M.V.O.P No. 133/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri Pilli Sundeep, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri Venkateswarlu Paladugu, Advocate for Respondent No.2 This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed; That the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Rs. 1,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum be and hereby is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,99,440/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization; That the Claimant No.1 be and hereby is entitled at Rs.2,99,440/- with proportionate interest and total costs. That the Claimant Nos.2 and 3 be and hereby are entitled at Rs.1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest. That all the claimants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw their respective share of compensation amount on deposit, at once. That the 2"'^ respondent be and hereby is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two (02) months. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge-cum-X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District 2. Two CD Copies Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED; 01/08/2025 ^ofanoTJ^ DECREE MACMA NO. 1188 OF 2012 5 1) I SEP 2025 m CurrenI Section ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS APHC010403722012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI r.k FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA jyiPTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1188 OF 2012 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03-12-2010 in M.V.O.P No.133/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. Between: 1. Kondeti Venkateswaramma, W/o. Parasuramaiah, Aged 39 years, R/o. Kunderu Village Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District 2. Kondeti Rattamma, W/o. Subbaiah, Aged 67 years, R/o. Kunderu Village Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District 3. Kondeti Siva Nagamalleswari, D/o. Parasuramaiah, Aged 22 years, R/o. Kunderu Village Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Ammisetti Ranga Rao, S/o. Ramaiah Owner of Lorry ABG 6507 R/o. Kunchinipalli village Tadepalli mandal, Guntur District 2. The National Insurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, ELuru ...Respondents/ Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Pilli Sundeep Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Venkateswarlu The Court made the following Judgment: Paladugu 1 APHC010403722012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal no: 1188/2012 Between: I.Kondeti Venkateswaramma And 2 Others, W/o. Parasuramaiah r/o. Kunderu village kankipadu mandal, krishna district 2.Kondeti Rattamma, W/o. Subbaiah r/o. Kunderu village kankipadu mandal, krishna district S.Kondeti Siva Nagamalleswari, D/o. Parasuramaiah r/o. Kunderu village Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. ...APPELLANT(S) AND I.Ammisetti Ranga Rao AND Another, s/o. Ramaiah owner of lorry abg 6507 r/o. Kunchinipalli village Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District 2.The National Insurance Company ltd, rep. By its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Eluru. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.PILLI SUNDEEP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.. . 2.VENKATESWARLU PALADUGU The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.1188 of 2012 JUDGMENT: I. Introductorv:- This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.133 of 2007 on the file of the X Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Machilipatnam [for short “learned MACT], dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- awarded under the decree dated 03.12.2010 against a claim made for Rs.5,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred with reference to their status before the learned MACT, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order. Case of claimants, in brief, is that: 2. II. 3. [i] One Kondeti Parasu Ramaiah, [herein after referred as ‘the deceased’], on 05.02.2002 at about 6.00 a.m. was attending the work of loading hay rick at Kunderu in the fields of Ramaseshaiah on one Nagamotu the lorry bearing No.ABG 6507 [for short ‘the offending vehicle], and when he came in front of the vehicle to give directions to the persons for tying the ropes, for the load on the offending vehicle, its driver started the vehicle without taking any precautions and 3 over the deceased, whereby the accident occurred and deceased succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. At the hospital, he declared as brought dead, [ii] A case in Crime No.33 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC was registered in Kankipadu Police Station, against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted, [iii] The accident is occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. ran was 1^’ respondent is the owner and 2'"'^ respondent is the authorized insurer, therefore, they are accountable and liable to pay the compensation. [iv] [V] The deceased was aged about ‘35’ years, hale and healthy, and earning Rs.5000/- per month attending agricultural labour work, petitioner is the wife, 2"'^ petitioner is the mother and 3 petitioner is the daughter of the deceased. [Vi] rd All the petitioners are dependents and entitled for a just and reasonable compensation. 1®’ respondent, owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. Case of Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company, in brief, is 4. III. that: 5. [i] Claimants are put to strict proof of their allegations including the Policy issued by the 2'^‘^ respondent -Insurance Company, valid and 4 effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in occurrence of the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the petitioners/claimants, justification for the quantum of compensation claimed etc. [ii] Negligence of the deceased cannot be ignored. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and the 2"'^ respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: [iii] 6. 1) Whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry bearing No.ABG 6507? 2) Whether compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, abnormal and unjust? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? And If so, from whom? To what extent? 4) To what relief? IV. Evidence before the learned MACT: 1®‘ claimant, wife of the deceased has taken the witness stand PW.1 and one Jampana Yesaiah informant under Ex.A1 is examined as PW.2 for the claimants. The claimants relied on the copies of the 7. as 5 documents marked vide Ex.A1-F.I.R, Ex.A2-Post Mortem Report, Ex.A3- Motor Vehicle Inspector Report and Ex.A4-charge sheet. For the respondents, no evidence is adduced. However, copy of the Insurance Policy-Ex.B1 and Inquest Report -Ex.B2 were got marked. V. Findings of the learned MACT: 8. 9. [i] On the strength of evidence, learned MACT found that negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle was the cause for the accident and that no steps are taken to examine the driver, record is indicating the involvement of the driver. Therefore, negligence is accepted and the claimants are entitled for compensation, in view of their relationship with the deceased and their dependency, [ii] Though the claimants claimed that the deceased was doing cattle business apart from agricultural work and earning Rs.400/- to 500/- per day. The income of the deceased is accepted at Rs.15,000/- p.a.. Multiplier ‘16’ is applicable for the age group [‘35’] and if 1/3'^^ is deducted towards personal expenditure, contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.10,000/- p.a. and entitlement in total comes to Rs.1,60,000/- under the head of loss of dependency and the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. In all they are entitled for Rs.1,87,000/-. Police 6 [iii] Respondents did not choose to file any appeal objection in the present appeal. Hence, the negligence, violation of any of conditions of Policy and liability etc., are out of the scope of this appeal. or cross 10. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 11. Now, the points that remains for determination is that - 1) What is the just and reasonable compensation that can be awarded to the claimants and whether the compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 modification? If so, to what extent? require any 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Vll. Precedential Guidance: 3) Adoption of Multiplier. Multiplicand and Calculation: 12. [i] Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla 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 2009 (6) see 121 7 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, [ii] Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. 8 b) Adding of future prospects: [i]. Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. 13. [ii] The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition t; recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is Further, adding of 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 Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. ts between 50-60 years. c)Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 14. Further enlarging the scope for awarding Just and compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu reasonable '2017(16) see 680 9 Ram and Others^, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not onfy to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. can d) Just Compensation: 15. 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 SCO 274 : 2003 see (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (see p. 280) "10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims 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 SCO 280 : (2009) 2 see (eiv) 877 : (2009) 2 See (eri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 see 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (eiv) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (eri) 1213] 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 now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or 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 ^(2018) 18 SCC 130 ^(2013)9 SCC 54 10 account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. e) 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 a respect of self-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 facts and evidencer- The claimants 1 to 3 are wife, mother and daughter of the deceased. Their entitlement for compensation is clear. Deceased was attending agricultural labour work. Except oral evidence, there is no other proof. Hence, income of the deceased to be taken notionally with reference to age of the deceased and socio economic circumstances of the year in which the accident occurred, age, occupation and income of the deceased. Deceased was aged about ‘35’, learned MACT has taken the income at Rs.15,000/- p.a., which suggests that monthly income has taken at Rs.450/-, then daily income comes to around Rs.40/-, which appears to be very low. in 16. [i] [ii] When the same is looked from the socio-economic context for the year 2002, in which the accident taken place, minimum wages for the labour was around Rs.50/- to 60/- in and around 2005. Here it is ^ (2021) 17 see 148 11 also claimed that the deceased was involved in cattle business, so the income of the deceased can be safely taken at Rs.70/- per day, monthly income comes to Rs.2,100/- per month and Rs.25,200/- p.a.. Since the deceased is self-employed and aged ‘35’, 30% towards future prospects can be added, then the income of the deceased comes to [Rs.7560 + 25,200/-] Rs.32,760/-. [iv] Multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘16’. [iii] 17. Now, it is pertinent to note the following; 1) Age of the deceased is ‘35’. 2) Income of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day. 3) Future prospects can be taken at 30%. Then income of the deceased on adding the future prospects comes to Rs.32,760/-. 4) 1/3'''^ of the same deducted towards personal expenditure, then the contribution to the claimants comes to Rs.21,840/-. 5) Multiplicand is Rs. 21,840/- 6) Multiplier applicable is‘16’. 7) Then the entitlement of the claimants under the head of loss of dependency is Rs.3,49,440/- 8) Claimants are entitled for - a) Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses b) Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and c) Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium i.e., 1 claimant-wife is entitled for spousal consortium, 2' claimant-mother is entitled for filial consortium and the 3'^^ claimant-daughter is entitled for parental consortium, in total Rs.1,20,000/-. St nd 12 9) Therefore, the entitlement of the petitioners/claimants in total comes to Rs.4,99,440/-. favour of the claimants. 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; Point No.1 is answered accordingly in 17. SI. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court Rs.3,49,440/- No. 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 1,60,000/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- -Nil- 3. Loss of estate -Nil- Rs.15,000/- 4. Funeral Expenditure Rs.2,000/- Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- (@ Rs.40,000/-to each claimant) Total: Rs.1,87,000 /- Rs.4,99,440/- 18. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is found at Rs.4,99,440/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered. 13 Point No.2: 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows:- The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.1,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and (1) enhanced to Rs.4,99,440/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (2) Apportionment: (i) Claimant No.1 is entitled at Rs.2,99,440/- with proportionate interest and total costs. (ii) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled at Rs.1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest. (3) All the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share of compensation amount on deposit, at once. (4) The 2"'^ respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two (02) months. 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 Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims TribunaJ-cum-Special Sessions Judge-cum-X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. Pilli Sundeep, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Venkateswarlu Paladugu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies at Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED: 01/08/2025 ^^cTofaSi^^ fc> I 2025 ^ V*i"'»"'S«uon^^ JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 1188 OF 2012 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS