APHC010631792005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the twenty seventh day of March two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: V.S.S.S.Prasad and others Sri K Ranganadham Mudaliar and others Counsel for the appellants: 1.N Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. Vinod Kumar Tarlada 2. Mutevi Muralikrishna (R The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This petition is filed 1988, against the award and decree dated M.V.O.P.No.359 of 200 Accidents Claims Tribunal IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the twenty seventh day of March two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3656 of 2005 rasad and others ...Appellants and Sri K Ranganadham Mudaliar and others ...Respondent ppellants: espondents: Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC) (R-2) Mutevi Muralikrishna (R-4) The Court made the following This petition is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 16-09-20 9 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, East [3311] Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3656 of 2005 Appellants Respondents under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 2005 in of Chairman, Motor II Additional District Judge, East 2 MACMA.No.3656 of 2005 Godavari, Rajahmundry, granting compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 2. The appellants are the claimants. The respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: On 13.09.2000, at about 4:30 A.M., V.V.Sujatha (in short, the deceased) and some others engaged two jeeps. Both jeeps were proceeding from Tirupati to Chittoor. The deceased was travelling in jeep bearing No.AP 03 v 2876. When the jeep reached near Venganapalli village at about 5.45 A.M., the RTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 6661 of the respondent No.2 driven by its driver / respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the jeep in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. The driver of the jeep also died on the spot. The other occupants of the jeep received grievous and simple injuries. The accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. The petitioner No.1 is the husband and the other two petitioners are the children of the deceased. The respondent No.3 is the owner of the jeep and the respondent No.4 is the insurer of the jeep. 4. The respondents no.1 and 3 remained ex parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed the counter denying the averments and contending that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the jeep. It is further contended that the respondent no.1 also sustained injury to his right foot and fractured injury and was treated in the government hospital, Chittoor. 3 MACMA.No.3656 of 2005 6. The respondent No.4 filed separate counter denying the claim of the petitioners and attributing the rash and negligence only to the respondent No.1. 7. On behalf of the claimants, PW.1 Vankayala Surya Subrahmanya Satyanarayana Prasad and PW.2 B.Srinivasa Rao were examined. The claimants filed Ex.A.1 certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.75 of 2000, Ex.A.2 certified copy of accident information report, Ex.A.3 certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, Ex.A.4 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.5 certified copy of post mortem certificate and Ex.A.6 certified copy of medical report. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 K.Ranganath Mudaliar and R.W.2 M.Madhava Rao were examined and marked Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy. 8. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehicles caused the accident. 9. The Tribunal assessed the services of the deceased at Rs.1200/- per month. Since her age was 33 years at the time of the death, multiplier ‘17’ was adopted. A total sum of Rs.2,44,800/- was calculated. That apart, compensation of Rs.15,000/- was estimated towards loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1. The total amount of Rs.2,59,800/- was rounded to the near figure Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation payable. 10. Since both the drivers were held responsible, the liability was apportioned @ 50% in respect of each vehicle. 11. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the respondent No.4 had not issued the policy referred in the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector in respect of the jeep involved in the accident. 4 MACMA.No.3656 of 2005 There is a clear finding that the cover note mentioned in the MVI report pertains to a policy which was issued in respect of another vehicle of the owner of the jeep. 12. Having aggrieved by the award and decree, the claimants preferred this appeal. 13. Though notice was served on respondent No.1, no appearance has been made. Notices sent to respondent No.3 was returned unserved as refused. Therefore, the service of notice is held sufficient. The respondent No.2 and the respondent No.4 appeared through advocates. 14. Heard the Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. No representation for the respondent No.4. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erroneously held that the driver of the jeep was also responsible in causing the accident, ignoring the fact that the charge sheet was laid only against the respondent No.1. He further submitted that the assessment of the services of the house wife @ Rs.1200/- per month is on low side and further that the compensation was not awarded under heads like loss of estate and funeral expenses. It is also submitted by him that the appellants no.2 and 3 also ought to have been granted compensation for loss of love and affection / parental consortium. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal rightly awarded the amount and the award and decree do not require interference in this appeal. 5 MACMA.No.3656 of 2005 17. Insofar as the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles is concerned, as there is due consideration of the evidence on record, the finding of the Tribunal that the drivers of both vehicles are responsible in causing accident does not require interference. 18. Insofar as the finding that the respondent No.4 had not issued policy of insurance covering the jeep involved in the accident needs no interference as the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are valid and based on evidence. 19. Insofar as the value of the services of the deceased estimated by the Tribunal @ Rs.1200/- per month is on low side and the same can be considered as Rs.2000/- per month. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.4,08,000/- (2000 x 12 x 17) as against Rs.2,44,800/- estimated by the Tribunal. 20. Since the Tribunal failed to grant any compensation of loss of estate and funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.15,000/- under each head (total Rs.30,000/-) is granted. 21. In addition to the loss of consortium granted to the claimant No.1, the claimants No.2 and 3 are also entitled to compensation towards loss of love and affection which is also called as loss of parental consortium. Under this head, both of them are granted Rs.10,000/- each (total Rs.20,000/-). This is in addition to Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant No.1 towards loss of spousal consortium. Thus, in total the amount of compensation payable is Rs.4,73,000/- as the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay only 50% of it, they shall pay Rs.2,36,500/- and the respondent No.3 shall pay Rs.2,36,500/-. The appeal against the respondent No.4 is dismissed. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is 7.5% p.a. which is low. 6 MACMA.No.3656 of 2005 The same can be increased to 9% p.a. as it was a reasonable rate during the period of the accident. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 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