r'"- APHC010478252017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST |o TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE G PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA motor accident civil MISCELLANROUS APPFAI NO: Between: 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 0/o.Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad. Now 0/o.Vijayawada. 2. APSRTC, Visakhapatnam, i Jalaripeta, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. 1947 OF 2017 rep by its Chairman rep by its Depot Manager 0/o.Waltair Depot ...Appellants AND 1. Smt Palla Ramani W/o.late Srinivas, Household Adarsa Nagar, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatam. duties Residing at1-41-20 2. Palla Susmitha, D/o.late Srinivas. Adarsa Nagar, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatam. 3. Palla Varun Kumar, S/o.late Srinivas, Aged 18 Adarsa Nagar, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatam. (3rd respondent being minor rep mother and natural guardian 1st respondent) ... Respondents / Petitioners 1 to 3 Aged 21 years. Residing at1-41-20 years. Residing at1-41-20. 4. Desula Chinna Rao, S/o.Jagannadham, APSRTC Waltair Depot, Pedda Waltair Depot, Visakhapatnam. Residing at55-7-183/7, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. Aged 33 years, Occ; Driver of / 5. Smt Palla Sanyasamma, W/o.late Suryanarayana, Aged Household duties Residing atGandhinagar, TB Hospital, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents 62 years Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam passed in MVOP No.734/2013 dated 05.12.2016. cum This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC FOR APSRTC), Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant and M/s. Jayanti S C Sekhar for Respondent. No.5 and Sri. Kambhampati ramesh babu for the respondent No.1 &2. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:- 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby allowed in part. 2. That the compensation of Rs. 17,54,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. 30.06.2017 awarded under the impugned decree and order dated passed in M.V.O.P.No.734 of 2013 be and is Rs. 16,44,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. Apportionment: 3. That the apportionment of compensation among the claimants 1 to 3 and the respondent No.4 shall be in proportion to the ratio adopted by the Motor Accident Cum Tribunal. hereby modified to 4. That The claimants 1 to 3 and the respondent No.4 are entitled to withdraw their share of compensation amount on deposit, at once. 5. That time for deposit of the balance compensation amount is two. 6. That there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam. 2. Two CD Copies / PR 4 HIGH COURT AHHS,J DATED:01/08/2025 > / f DECREE WIACMA NO. 1947 OF 2017 N, .T" ■ o( 0 SEP 2025 Sectioa^'5>' cr-: PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL APHC010478252017 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: 1947 OF 2017 Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Visakhapatnam passed in MVOP No.734/2013 dated 05.12.2016. cum Between: 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Chairman 0/o.Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad. Now 0/o.Vijayawada. 2. APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Jalaripeta, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. rep by its Depot Manager O/o.Waltair Depot, ...Appellants AND 1. Smt Palla Ramani W/o.late Srinivas, Household duties Residing at1-41-20, Adarsa Nagar, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatam. 2. Palla Susmitha, D/o.late Srinivas. Aged 21 years. Residing at1-41-20, Adarsa Nagar, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatam. 3. Palla Varun Kumar, S/o.late Srinivas, Aged 18 years, Residing at1-41-20, Adarsa Nagar, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatam. (3rd respondent being minor rep by mother and natural guardian 1st respondent) ...Respondents / Petitioners 1 to 3 4. Desula Chinna Rao, S/o.Jagannadham, Aged 33 years, Occ: Driver of APSRTC Waltair Depot, Pedda Waltair Depot, Visakhapatnam. Residing at55-7-183/7, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. 5. Smt Palla Sanyasamma, W/o.late Suryanarayana, Aged 62 years Household duties Residing atGandhinagar, TB Hospital, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents IA NO: 2 OF 2017fMACMAMP 3526 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of execution of decree passed by Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam passed in MVOP No.734/2013 dated 05.12.2016. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC), Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 & 2 :SRI. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : M/s. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010478252017 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: 1947/2017 Between: 1. AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN O/O.BUS BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. NOW O/O.VIJAYAWADA. 2.APSRTC, REP BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER O/O.WALTAIR DEPOT, JALARIPETA, PEDDA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.SMT PALLA RAMANI 4 ORS, W/O.LATE SRINVIAS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES R/O.1-41-20, ADARSA NAGAR, PEDDA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATAM. 2. PALLA SUSMITHA, D/O.LATE SRINVIAS R/O.1-41-20, ADARSA NAGAR, PEDDA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATAM. 3.PALLA VARUN KUMAR, S/O.LATE SRINVIAS R/0.1-41-20, ADARSA NAGAR, PEDDA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATAM. (3RD RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REP MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1 ST RESPONDENT) 4.DESULA CHINNA RAO, S/O.JAGANNADHAM OCC: DRIVER OF PEDDA WALTAIR DEPOT, MADHURAWADA, APSRTC WALTAIR DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM. R/0.55-7-183/7, % VISAKHAPATNAM. 5.SMT PALU uo, .or- SANYASAMMA, household duties VISAKHAPATNAM W/O.LATE : R/o.gandhinagarSURYANARAYANA. . tb hospital -RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the AppeIlant(S); 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA 2. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR Counsel for the Respondent(S); I.JAYANTI s c sekhar 2.KAMBHAMPATIRAMESH (SC FOR APSRTC) (APSRTC) BABU The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.IVI.A.No.1947 of 2017 JUDGMENT: I. Introductorv:- Respondents 2 and 3 in M.V.O.P.No.734 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam [for short “learned MACT] filed the present appeal, against the award and decree dated 05.12.2016 passed therein, questioning the liability imposed and quantum of compensation awarded at Rs. 17,54,000/- as against a claim made for Rs.11,50,000/-. Respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No.5 herein are the legal heirs and the dependents to one Palla Srinivasa Rao [herein after referred as ‘the deceased’]. Claim petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 2. herein. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as the claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the 3. impugned order. Case of the claimants: 4. [i] On the fateful day i.e., on 30.09.2009, the deceased boarded RTC city bus bearing No.17k and registered No.AP 11 Z 1912, at Alfa hotel, Visakhapatnam, travelling from City Civil defense to 4 Jagadamba junction, but the driver due to which, the deceased head injury. He was shifted to KGH where treatment conducted, sustained in the accident. The deceased of the bus suddenly applied breaks was thrown out from the bus and sustained Hospital, thereafter to Care Hospital', was provided for 37 days and But ultimately died operation was also on 20.05.2012 due to the injuries [ii] was hale and healthy, earning Rs.8000/- Claimant No.1 is wife. Claimants 2 and 3 per month. are children respondent No.4 is mother of the deceased, and dependents and they lost valuable affection. They are the legal heirs financial support, love and are entitled for just and Hence, they reasonable compensation. 5. The 1 respondent-driver of the bus Case of the respondent Nos.2. 3-APSRTr-- remained ex parte. 6. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Deceased tried to board the running bus and he was unable to hold the bus, fell down and sustained injuries. Therefore, the respondent RTC is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Learned MACT settled the issues touching the point of negligence and entitlement of compensation as well as quantification. 5 Findings of the learned MACT:- 8. [i] By referring to the oral and documentary evidence covered by PWs.1 to 4, Exs.M to A8 and RW.1 learned MACT found that the negligence of the driver of the bus is cause for the accident. Eye witness, PW.4 and the crime record covered by Ex.A1- F.I.R. in Cr.No.100 of 2009, Ex.AS - M.V.I. report, are sufficient to believe that negligence of the driver of bus is the cause for the accident. The evidence of RW.1, driver of the bus is interested [ii] testimony, whereas the evidence of PW.4, independent witness is reliable. [iii] With regard to quantifying compensation, learned MACT after referring to the head injury, prolonged treatment, the other evidence like Discharge Summary, Death Certificate etc., concluded that the injuries sustained due to the accident are the cause for the death, [iv] Adopted income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- with reference to the evidence of PW.3 and Salary Certificate -Ex.X2, added future prospects at 30%, taken the annual income at Rs.1,24,800/-,after deducting 1/3^^ towards personal expenditure accepted Rs.93,600/- as the multiplicand and applied ‘15’ multiplier, considering the age of the deceased as ‘37’ by referring to the judgment in Sar/a Verma’s^ case, and awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife. " 2009(6) see 121 6 Rs.50,000/- each to the deceased/respondent No.5, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral estate, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation of expectancy, in all awarded Rs. 17,54 Arguments children, Rs.50,000/- to the mother of the towards loss of love and affection and towards loss of and Rs.25,000/- towards loss 000/- as compensation. expenditure, Rs.25,000/- For the appellant-- 9. [i] Income taken at Rs. 10,400/- [ii] Awarding compensation of Rs. Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss per month is without any basis. 1,50,000/- towards love and of consortium etc.. affection are all irrational. [iii] Adding of 30% income towards future prospects is baseless. [IV] Negligence of the deceased is ignored. For the claimant.*;■- 10. [i] Claimants are entitled for more compensation than what is claimed and awarded. [ii] Findings of the learned MACT there are no grounds to interfere. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. are well founded and that 11. 7 The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: Whether the pleaded accident, dated 30.09.2009 is attributable to the negligence of the driver of the RTC bus? And whether the death of the deceased is due to the injuries sustained in the accident? Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? if so, to what quantum? 3) Whether the compensation of Rs. 17,54,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or require any interference? if so, on what grounds and to which extent? 4) What is the result of the appeal ? 12. 1) 2) Point No.1:- Precedential Guidance:- It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode . 13. of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference It is sufficient if there is to facts and circumstances of each case, 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 claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of 8 probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. 14. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Simla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation^ which reads as under. 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view 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 possible to be done by the claimants, claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration respective stories set forth by both the parties..” the 15. In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors.^ the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168 Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also decisions. The point for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench was that in holding an inquiry in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, what is the procedure to be followed and whether the F.I.R. can be basis for considering the claim. Observations in para 5 to 7 are as follows: “5. Point: Vs. 169 of M.V. catena of ' 2009 (13) see 530 ^ 2009 Supreme (AP) 136=2010(2) ALD 403=2009(3) ALT 260 9 Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining just compensation, etc. In holding any such inquiry. Section 169 of the Act mandates the Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules. The Tribunal w/as conferred with the powers of a civil Court for the specified purposes and under Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims Tribunal i/i/as directed to follow the procedure of summary trial as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal was cautioned not to reject any application on the ground of any technical flaw and was also obligated to obtain whatever information necessary from the police, medical and other authorities. It Is true that sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules states that the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of registration certificate of the motor vehicle, insurance certificate or Policy, copy of first information report, post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the medical officer and the nature of treatment given by the medical Officer. 6. The said sub-rule obviously refers to the relevant dependable criteria for assessment of the compensation, which is patently illustrative and can never be considered to be exhaustive. This Sub-rule stating the basis to award the claim, is obviously subject to the prohibition against depending on any technical flaw and the procedure for summary trial to be followed by the Tribunal. The said sub-rule cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation imposed on the Tribunal to determine the just compensation after an inquiry, In which an opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. The judicial determination of the questions in controversy before the Tribunal In terms of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act cannot be confined to consideration of the five documents referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules alone and exclude any other oral or documentary evidence. The procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure which the Tribunal shall follow under Rule 476 of the Rules itself mandates taking all such evidence as may be produced by both sides in support of their respective versions, apart from the evidence which the Court, of its 10 own motion, causes to be produced as per Section 262 read with Sections 254 and 255 of the said Code. Sub-rule (7) to be understood in the light of the object and scheme of the Act, is a directory provision referring to of the documents which some can offer guidance to the Tribunal in discharge of its statutory duty and the word "shall used in the said: subrule has to be necessarily understood as "may". 7. That apart, to say that the, first information conclusive basis for determining the manner of the accident, even in spite of the availability of other dependable evidence will be offending the plain language of the statute and purport of sub-rule (7), it cannot be considered valid, legislation cannot travel beyond the legislation itself. Evidence and Analvsis-- report alone should be the on record on that aspect, if that were the as any such delegated 16. [i] Evidence of PW.4 independent one. Evidence of RW.1 i observed by the learned MACT. is the third party evidence and interested testimony as rightly IS [ii] The evidence of PW.4 reveals that he is an auto driver standing at footpath near Alfa hotel; he observed sudden application break by the APSRTC bus of one person fell down from the bus and receiving head injury. During the cross-examination, it is elicited that the accident road is a busy road. It was suggested to him that the deceased did not travel in the bus, but he has volunteered that he observed the injured falling from the bus. RW.1 driver of the bus did not deny the registration of the case and also the fact of the deceased travelling in the bus specifically. [iii] 11 [iv] The evidence of PW.4 and RW.1 if seen in comparison, the deceased fell down from the bus is found probable, when RW.1 says that the deceased tried to get into the bus, he should have slow down. [V] RW.1 admitted about the registration of case by Police and prosecution against him. [Vi] Therefore, upon application of the probability theory. particularly in the light of the crime record and the evidence of PW.4 and RW.2 and in the light of the statutory and precedential guidance referred to above vide Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi’s case, India Assurance Company Ltd.’s case [cited 2 & 3 supra] this Court concurs with the findings of the learned MACT, on the point regarding the accident as attributable to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Nexus between the death and the injuries sustained in the accident:- 17. [I Deceased sustaining head injury is indicated in the documentary evidence. The evidence of PW.2, Dr.P.V. Ramana is as follows:- Chief-examination Mr.P.Srinivas was admitted in Care Hospital on 30.09.2009 for When he was admitted, he was unconscious and had parlesis of the limb movements. On the same day c.t. scan done showed left FTP sub-duri hemotoma for which emergency treatment of road traffic accident. 12 surgery was done, atter surgery he was put on ventilator and later tracheostomi done. He improved some extent and was discharged on 05.11.2009. I suggested that after discharge it need 15 days Ex.A7 medical bills belongs to patient and relates to Care Hospital. It is difficult on the patient condition to go for driving; there is possibility that these injuries may lead to other complications, which leads to death. Cross-examination by R2 and R3 Counsel:- review. It is not true to suggest that at the time of discharge patient condition was in good. There is possibility to survive some people, if taken treatment after discharge. It is not true to suggest that some people develop complications after discharge. I have not issued wound certificate (Ex.A2) and it was not signed by me. It is not true to suggest that I have not prescribed Ex.A7-Bills. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false evidence to help the petitioners.” 18. Death Certificate under Ex.A8, dated 20.05.2012 indicating that one Palla Srinivasa Rao/deceased died on 20.05.2012. PW.2, Doctor, stated that the injuries may lead to other complications, which may lead to death and his evidence is dated 29.12.2015. examination, it was not even suggested to PW.2 that the injuries cannot be the cause for the death of the deceased. PW.1, wife of the deceased deposed clearly that the deceased was under continuous treatment and after the accident, the deceased was removed from the services, because of the illness. The findings of the learned MACT that the deceased died due to severe head injury, sustained in the accident found fit for acceptance, when the facts and circumstances of the case are seen and upon application of the During the cross- 19. 13 probability theory. Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of claimants. Point No.2: Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the children and the respondent No.4 is mother of the deceased, their status as legal heirs and dependents is undisputable and fairly not disputed by the respondent-RTC. Their entitlement for compensation is clear. The other point remains for consideration is the just and adequate nature of compensation. Precedential guidance as to quantum of Compensation: 20. a) Adoption of Multiplier. Multiplicand and Calculation: 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 per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following; 21. [i] 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. '' 2009 (6) see 121 14 [ii] Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which deceased he / she should have same can be arrived after deducting certain expenses of the deceased. Step Nq.2: shall be the income of the contributed to the dependents and the part of personal living Ascertaining Multiplier. This shaii be with reference to the tabie provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain heads towards loss of estate, loss of cost of transport, cost of medical deceased before the death etc. are advised. b)Addinq of future prospects: amount towards conventional consortium, funeral expenditure. expenses for treatment of the 22. [i]. Enhancing the scope for awarding just Hoh’ble Apex Court i compensation, the in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay 15 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. The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self 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, at 10% where the deceased is ‘ between 50-60 years. [ii] 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. c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: 23. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable . compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others^, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse ^ 2017(16) see 680 ® (2018) 18 see 130 16 but also to the children and parents under the heads consortium, d) Just Compensation: of parental and filial 24. 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 claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arisinq for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCO 274 : 2003 fsccp%0)^ follows: 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 awardinq just compensation. ” ^ The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 see (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) 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 account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. ” (2013) 9 SCC 54 17 Factual position and Analysis of Evidence 25. [i] The income of the deceased adopted by the learned MACT with reference to the Salary Certificate-Ex.X2, corresponding to Ex.A6 and the evidence PW.3, at Rs.8,000/- per month found proper. Further^ adoption of 30% towards future prospects, considering private nature of employment and age of the deceased is also acceptable. Likewise deduction of 1/3’’^ towards personal expenditure [ii] w needs no interference. Hence, compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency at Rs. 14,04,000/- shall stand confirmed. However St with reference to awarding of compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1 nd th claimant and Rs.50,000/- each to the 2 3 claimants and the 4 respondent, under the head of loss of love and affection require interference as the same is not in tune with the norms set by the Apex Court. Further the compensation awarded under funeral expenditure and loss of estate at Rs.25,000/- each, also require modification, in tune with the guidelines under Sara Verma and Pranay Sethi’s cases [cited ^ supra]. [iii] However, the compensation awarded under the head of transportation, needs no interference in view of the hospitalization etc.. [iv] The compensation awarded under the head of loss of expectancy at Rs.25,000/- required to be deleted. However, considering that the claimants have incurred medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- can be 18 awarded under the head of medical Ex.A7- medical bills and the expenditure notionally, considering evidence on record, although amount is stated in figures as to medical expenditure. no specific 26. In the light of the evidence on record and in view of the precedential guidance, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation awarded by the compensation in learned MACT is as follows: comparison to the Head Compensation Fixed by this awarded by the Court MACT 1. Loss of Dependency Loss of Consortium Rs. 14.04,000/- Rs. 14,04,000/- 2. Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- [Loss of Love and Affection 1 Rs.25,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/- [+] [@Rs.40,000/- each] 3. Funeral and obsequies expenses 4. Transportation Expenses Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 5: Rs.25,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Loss of expectancy of life 7. Medical Expenditure Rs.25,000/- / -Nil- -Nil- Rs.25,000/- 8. Total compensation awarded Rs.17,54,000/- Rs.16,44,000/- 19 Point No.3:- 27. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn under points 1 and 2, the impugned Award and Decree dated 05.12.2016, requires interference and hence, the compensation awarded at ‘ Rs. 17,54,000/- is modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 16,44,000/-. No.3 is answered accordingly. Point / / Point No.4: 28. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as follows;- Compensation of Rs. 17,54,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. awarded under the impugned decree and order dated 30.06.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.734 of 2013 is modified to Rs.16,44,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. [i] V ' Apportionment: The apportionment of compensation among the claimants 1 to 3 and the respondent No.4 shall be in proportion to the ratio adopted by the learned MACT. [iii] Claimants 1 to 3 and the respondent No.4 are entitled to withdraw their share of compensation amount on deposit, at once. 20 [iv] Time for deposit of the balance compensation amount is two (02) months. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Sessions Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam (with records) One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC FOR APSRTC) [OPUC] One CC to M/s. Jayanti S C Sekhar Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Advocate [OPUC] The V R Section, Section Officer, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Two CD Copies 1. cum VII Additional District and 2. Advocate 3. 4. 5. 6. PR nm i!l: HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 JUDGMENT +DECREE MAGMA NO. 1947 OF 2017 g( Ot SEP 2025 m irentSwtiji^/ O! PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL