IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARM MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40 OF 2017 Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act praying that the High court may be pleased to against the Judgment and Decree of the Chairman IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Nellore at Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District in O.P. 483/2014 dt. 08-09-2016 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented its Branch Manager, Dargamitta. Nellore. ...APPELLANT AND 1. B Radamma, W/o. LateVijaya Bhaskar Reddy. Hindu, Aged about: 36 Years R/o Kotha Vellanti. Nellore Rural Mandal. SPSR Nellore District. 2. Bellum Hemantha Reddy, S/o LateVijaya Bhaskar Reddy Hindu, aged about 19 Years. R/o Kotha Vellanti. Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 3. BellumVijayapriya, D/o LateVijaya Bhaskar Reddy Hindu, aged about 17 years. R o Kotha Vellanti. Nellore Rural Mandal. SPSR Nellore District. 4. Bellum Kavamma, W/o Late Anantha Reddy. Hindu. Aged about 57 years. R/o Kotha Vellanti. Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. (Respondent no.3 being minor, represented by her Mother/natural guardian respondent no.1 herein.) jM r ■} l r -a A.'-' i 5. K.Suresh, S/o Gopalaiah. Hindu, aged about not known Owner of the Tipper hearing No.AP 26 Y 5898. R/o Chillakuru Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. } (R5 is Not Necessary Rarty) Exparty before the Lower Court ...RESPONDENTS I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP. NO: 142 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings including the execution of the decree and order passed in O.P.NO. 483/2014 dt. 08-09-2016 on the file of the Chairman IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Nellore at Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. Counsel for the Appellant(s):Sri. Nagumantri Nageswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Sri. Koppula Gopal The Court made the following Judgment: 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA IVI.A.C.M.A.No.40 of 2017 JUDGMENT; 1. This is an appeal filed in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act directed against the decree and order dated 08.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.483 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge Nellore (for short “the learned MACT”). 2. Appellant herein is Respondent No.2 / insurer, Respondent No.5 herein is the owner of the Tipper bearing No.AP 26 Y 5898 (for short “the offending vehicle”) and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the claimants before the learned MACT under the impugned proceedings. Questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded this appeal is filed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the Respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT. Case of the claimants: 4. One Bellam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), husband of Claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and son of Claimant No.4, aged about ‘37’ years owning Ac.5.00 of land was cultivating the 2 personally apart from doing milk vending business and taking care of the family by contributing his all income at Rs. 10,000/- per month. On 09.08.2013 the offending vehicle was parked on the road near^anani Babu Emo Kolia Formf on Nellore to Jonnawada road. At about 10:30 P.M., while deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle dashed the offending vehicle on its 5. diesel tank. Due to which, the deceased suffered instantaneous death. The negligent parking of offending vehicle on the road without taking proper precautions and signals is the cause for the accident. A case in Crime No.355 of 2013 for the offences under Section 304-A IPC 6. was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and the charge sheet was filed against him before the concerned Court. 7. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the authorized insurer with whom the vehicle was insured. Cause of accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Death of deceased exposed all the claimants to inexplicable trauma and loss. Hence they are entitled for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. He remained ex 8. parte. Case of Respondent No.2: The claimants shall prove all the allegations made; viz. as to accident and 9. negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in parking the same, age, 3 deceased, dependency of claimants, loss of occupation, income of the dependency, valid and effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle. The contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motor cycle cannot be ignored. In any event the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues the learned MACT; i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper bearing No.AP 26 Y 5898? ii) Whether the claimants are and amount? iii) To what relief? 11. Evidence before the learned MACT: were settled for trial by ia entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent Remarks Description the Wife of deceased. P.W.T. Bellam Radhamma Oral evidence Eye witness to the accident. Resident of Kotha Vellanki Village P.W.2; Maram Ramesh Reddy P.W.3: Boddu Venkateswarlu Reddy EX.A1; Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No. 355/2013 of Nellore Police Station. EX.A2; Attested Xerox copy of inquest report. On behalf of the petitioner(s). Documentary evidence 4 Ex.A3:Attested Xerox copy of Postmortem Report. Ex.A4: Attested Xerox copy of Charge sheet. Ex.AS: Pattadar pass book stands in the name of deceased. Ex.A6: Title deed stands in the name of deceased. Ex.B1: Insurance Policy bearing No.462990/31/2014/544 from 23.07.2013 to midnight of 22.07.2014. On behalf of Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company valid Findings of the learned MACT: a) On the point of negligence: 12. Death of deceased due to accident is not in dispute. Crime record covered by Ex.AI to Ex.A4 is supporting the same. No evidence is adduced for the Insurance Company rebutting the evidence placed by the claimants. The motor cyclists cannot see objects for some time when there is headlights focus from opposite vehicles. Charge sheet is clear as to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is evident from the record being the cause for the accident. b) On the point of guantification of compensation: 13. Deceased was aged about ‘37’ years as per the Police record. Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 Pattadar pass books and title deeds are indicating the land holding of the Evidence of PW.3 is indicating the deceased was earning deceased. Rs. 13,000/- to Rs. 14,000/- per month out of the milk vending business. 5 of the deceased can be Then the annual income comes to analysis of evidence, the income However, upon approximately taken at Rs.6,000/- per month On deduction of IM'" of the same, contributioh to the family comes Rs.72,000/-. Upon application of multiplier 'IS’, the total amount under the Claimants are entitled for to Rs.54,000/-. head of loss of dependency comes Rs.5,000/-(claimant to Rs.8,10,000/-. No-1) towards loss of consortium, Rs,2,000/- towards and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses . In all, the claimants transport charges entitled for Rs.8,19,000/-. are Arguments in the appeal! For the appellant / insurance company the claimants. The deceased had opportunity to see and The accident occurred in the night time even as per 14. offending vehicle was stationed and the the part of the deceased The driver of the offending vehicle is a violation of avoid collision. Therefore, the negligence is there on also. Hence, the liability is to be apportioned valid and effective driving license and the same was not having conditions of policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. For the claimants^ carefully analyzed the evidence and found that the The learned MACT has of the driver of the offending vehicle in parking the car as the cause 15. negligence 6 for the accident. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be accepted and findings of the learned MACT are fit to be confirmed. The learned MACT erred in taking the income at only Rs.6,000/- as against 16. the income spoken by the witnesses around Rs. 15,000/- and the compensation awarded under all heads is very low. The claimants are entitled for more There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what claimed, compensation than what claimed either for the tribunal or for this appellate Court. Hence, the claimantsare entitled for enhancementof the compensation. 17. Learned MACT adopted the guess work and accepted the income at Rs.6,000/- per month at the rate of Rs.200/- per day. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the income taken at Rs.6,000/- per month is excessive. whereas the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the future prospects are not added. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments 18. advanced by the both sides. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 09.08.2013 has occurred due to the exclusive rash and negligence driving of the driver of the offending vehicle whether there was any contribution of negligence by the deceased? 19. or y 7 if so to what entitled for compensation of Respondent No.2 (appellant 2) Whether the claimants are quantum and what is Insurance Company)? the liability dated 08.09.2016 passed by the learned of Rs.8,19,000/- with interest at 7.5% from sustainable in law on facts or 3) Whether the award and decree MACT granting compensation the date of petition till the date of deposit are interference is necessary, if so on what grounds and to which whether any extent? 4) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: consider while assessing negliqencei 20. Parameters MACT can Whether there is denial by proper person. 1) evidence from disputing party, least oath against oath and tested by cross- There must be convincing 2) There must be at 3) examination. witnesses reflected in charge sheet filed by cannot be the thumb rule. Examination of eye Police is preferable. However, the same Examination of witnesses present at the scene 4) of offence, at 5) relevant time. 8 The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies 6) the negligence, it will have some importance, in cases of contributory negligence. 7) In cases of serious dispute as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles, summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or improbabilities is necessary. 8) The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor Vehicles Inspector Report indicating the damage to the vehicles etc. will be helpful to draw some inference. 9) However, no straight jacket and standard formula is possible and each matter has to be considered on its own merits and facts and circumstances including the relevant and reliable evidence placed before the tribunal. 10) Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter. 21. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is 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 9 accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. Further, in the context of the case before this Court as to negligent parking of the vehicle, it is necessary to examine on whom the duty of care lies and whether failure to avoid collision will amount to either negligence or contributory negligence. This standard of proof required to be borne in mind and how the defence of contributory negligence in respect of parked vehicle are addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following case. Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation^ in para 15 observed as follows: 22. 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 15. strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of The standard of proof beyond preponderance of probability, reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken Into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties. ” 2009 (13) see 530 10 On whom negligence lies in respect of parked vehicles: Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushma vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and others^ has extensively considered the defence of contributory negligence where failure 23. to avoid collision by taking some extra precaution and whether the same will amount to negligence, apart from the standard of proof required to be taken into consideration while assessing the negligence. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in para Nos.25 to 38 are found relevant and applicable to the case on hand, particularly with regard to appreciation of the principle as to on whom the negligence lies in respect of a parked vehicle, whether it is on the person who wrongfully parked or the person who dashed such wrongfully parked vehicle and application of the last opportunity rule, the observations are as follows; 25. Common sense requires that no vehicle can be left parked and unattended in the middle of the road as it would definitely be a traffic hazard posing risk to the other road users. 26. We shall briefly refer to the statutory provisions applicable to the situation at hand. 27. A highway or a road is a public place as defined in Section 2(34) of the Act:— “2(34) “public place” means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage; . n (2024) see Online Se 2284: 2024 (6) ALD (Se) 11 4// •' y 28. Section 121 of the Act provides that the driver of a motor vehicle shall make such signals and, on such occasions, as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 29. Section 122 of the Act provides that no person In charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allo\A/ the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any “public place” In such a position or In such a condition or in such circumstances so as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers. 30. Section 126 of the Act provides that no person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allov\/ the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place. 31. Section 127(2) of the Act provides that where any abandoned, unattended, wrecked, burnt or partially dismantled vehicle is creating a traffic hazard, because of its position in relation to the public place, or its physical appearance is causing the Impediment to the traffic, its immediate removal from the public place by a towing service may be authorised by a police officer having jurisdiction. 32. Regulation 15 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 which were prevailing on the date of the incident provides that every driver of a motor vehicle shall park the vehicle in such a way that it does not cause or Is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users. It casts a duty on the drivers of a motor vehicle stating that the vehicle shall not be parked at or near a road crossing or in a main road. 33. These legal provisions leave no room for doubt that the person in control of the offending truck acted in sheer violation of law while abandoning the vehicle in the middle of the road and that too without taking precautionary measures like switching on the parking lights, reflectors or any other appropriate steps to warn the other vehicles travelling on the highway. Had the accident taken place during the daytime or if the place of accident was well illuminated, then perhaps, the car driver could have been held equally responsible the for ’'s 12 '■i. accident by applying the rule of last opportunity. But the fact remains that there was no illumination at the accident site either natural artificial. Since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the road in clear violation of the applicable rules and regulations, the burden to prove that the placement of the said vehicle as such was beyond human control and that appropriate precautionary measures taken while leaving the vehicle In that position were essentially on the person In control of the offending truck. However, no evidence was led by the person having control over the said truck in this regard. Thus, the entire responsibility for the negligence leading to the accident was of the truck owner/driver. 34. In view of the above discussion, the view expressed by the High Court that if the driver of the car had been vigilant and would have driven the vehicle carefully by following the traffic rules, the accident may have been avoided is presumptuous on the face of the record as the same is based purely on conjectures and surmises. Nothing on record indicates that the car was being driven at an excessively high speed or that the driver failed to follow the traffic rules. The High Court recorded an Incongruous finding that if the offending truck had not been parked on the highway, the accident would not have happened even If the car was being driven at a very high speed. Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court on the issue of contributory negligence is riddled with inherent contradictions and is paradoxical. 35. The Courts below erred in concluding that it is a case of contributory negligence, because in order to establish contributory negligence, some act or omission which materially contributed to the accident or damage should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged. or In the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey KunvargI Tak, this Court while referringto a decision of the High Court ofAustralia In Astley v. AustrustLtd., went on to hold that:— 36. 13 where, by his negligence, if one party places another In a situation of danger which compels that other to act quickly In order to extricate himself. It does not amount to contributory negligence, If that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. ” 37. In the very same judgment, this Court also referred to and approved the view taken in Swadling v. Cooper, as below:— "Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extra ordinary precaution, does not in Itself constitute negligence. ” (emphasis supplied) 38. A three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Archit Saini V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, had the occasion to consider an identical fact evidence available on record, it i/i/as held:— "8. After having perused the evidence of PW7, Site Map (Ext. P-45) and the detailed analysis undertaken by the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the approach of the High Court in reversing the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 has been very casual, if not cryptic and perverse. Indeed, the appeal before the High Court is required to be decided on fact and law. That, however, would not permit the High Court to casually overturn the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. As is evident from the analysis done by the Tribunal, it is a well-considered opinion and a plausible view. The High Court has not adverted to any specific reason as to why the view taken by the Tribunal was incorrect or not supported by the evidence on record. It is well settled that the nature of proof required in cases concerning accident claims is qualitatively different from the one in criminal cases, which must be beyond any reasonable doubts. The Tribunal applied the correct test in scenario, and after analysing the 14 the analysis of the evidence before it. Notably, the High Court has not doubted the evidence of PW7 as being unreliable nor has It discarded his version that the driver of the Maruti Car could not spot the parked Gas Tanker due to the flashlights of the oncoming traffic from the front side. Further, the Tribunal also adverted to the legal presumption against the driver of the Gas Tanker of having parked his vehicle in a negligent manner in the middle of the road. The Site Plan (Ext. P-45) reinforces the version of PW7 that the Truck (Gas Tanker) was parked In the middle of the road but the High Court opined to the contrary without assigning any reason whatsoever. In our view, the Site Plan (Ext. P- 45) filed along with the chargesheet does not support the finding recorded by the High Court that the Gas Tanker was not parked In the middle of the road. Notably, the High Court has also not doubted the claimant's plea that the Gas Tanker/offending vehicle was parked without any indicator or parking lights. The fact that PW7 who was standing on the opposite side of the road at a distance of about 70 feet, could see the Gas Tanker parked on the other side of the road does not discredit his version that the Maruti Car coming from the opposite side could not spot the Gas Tanker due to flashlights of the oncoming traffic from the front side. It is not in dispute that the road Is a busy road. In the cross-examination, neither has any attempt been made to discredit the version of PW7 nor has any suggestion been made that no vehicle with flashlights on was coming from the opposite direction of the parked Gas Tanker at the relevant time. 9. Suffice it to observe that the approach of the High Court in reversing the well-considered finding recorded by the Tribunal on the material fact, which was supported by the evidence on record, cannot be countenanced. 15 10. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the said finding of the High Court. As a result, the appellants would be entitled to the enhanced determined by the High Court in its entirety without any deduction towards contributory negligence. In other words, lA/e restore the finding of the Tribunal rendered on Issue No. 1 against the respondents and hold that respondent no. 1 negligently parked the Gas Tanker/offending vehicle In the middle of the road without any indicator or parking lights. ” compensation as Analysis of EvidennA! 24. Having disputed the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, no steps are taken by the appellant-insurance Company to adduce any evidence. The driver of the offending vehicle or any other witness shown in the charge sheet are not examined. The owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 25. Proper persons to dispute the negligence are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, they did not object. Having availed the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company failed to show / bring to place any evidence. 26. Evidence of PW.2, the eye witness tested through remained unshaken in vindicating the stand of the claimants as to negligent parking of the offending vehicle without.taking any precaution and signals and it cross examination .,5; 16 a dark night. Presence of PW.2 at the time of spot is not in dispute. was accident near the accident 27. The witness is able to say the width of the road place of accident. It is also elicited from motor cycle was proceeding around with is about 20 to 25 feet at the cross examination of PW.2 that the a speed of 50 KMs. PW.2 denied the negligence on the part of the deceased. In any view of the matter, particularly in Reddy who is cited as L.W.1 the light of the evidence of PW.2/ Maram Ramesh in charge sheet-Ex.A4 and who is the informant under Ex.A1-FIR, this Court concludes that the claimants are able to show the negligence of the offending vehicle and the conclusions drawn by the learned MACT are fit to be approved and concurred on part of the driver particularly in the light of the precedential guidance mentioned above. Accordingly, concurred and Point No.1 is answered against the appellant insurance company. Point Nos.2 and 3: Liability: 28. The appellant-insurance Company disputing the liability on the grounds: 1) The absence negligence and contributory negligence; this aspect has been answered under point No.1. i. 17 2) The absence of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle, the burden of proof lies on the insurance company; But, No evidence is placed. Hence, the Therefore, answered against the Insurance Company. Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Quantum of Compensation: Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- a) Adoption of Multiplier. Multiplicand and Calculation: 29.(i). Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sar/a 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; 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. 2009 (6) see 121 m 18 29.(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. b) Adding of future prospects: 30(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% '2017(16) see 680 19 where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. 30(.ii). 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. 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: 31. 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 but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. (2018) 18 see 130 ♦ ■ w 20 % d) Just Compensation: 32. 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 see 274 : 2003 SCC (eri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (See p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the eialms 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 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (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. Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal: 33(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the (2013) 9 SCC 54 21 .^’4/ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others^^ in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows: 50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants. cross 33(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (11 supra) are in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others^\ case 33(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (12 supra) Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of case, in 2023 see Online AP 1725 (2021) 16 see 467 22 Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made. Analysis of evidence: 34. PW.1 / claimant No.1 deposed about the relationship with the deceased, age, occupation and income of the deceased. She has specifically stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and contributing Rs.70,000/- per annum after deducting all the expenditure to the family. During cross examination she has stated that the deceased was used to sell 40 litres of milk every day. She has no record to show that the agricultural income at Rs.70,000/- per annum and Rs. 10,000/- from the milk vending business. 35. PW.3 Resident of the same village stated that he is used to sell 30 to 40 liters of milk per day and he was getting Rs. 13,000/- to Rs. 14,000/- per month. Deceased was also in the same business. He was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month from milk business. During cross examination he has stated that he has no record to show his income at what he has claimed. 36. The documentary evidence, pattadar pass book Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 indicating land holding. Upon considering the land holding; evidence of PW.3; 23 non-inclusion of future prospects; the income taken at Rs.6,000/- per month by the learned MACT cannot be taken as excessive. At the best, the same can be considered the income of the deceased inclusive of future prospects. Therefore the income at Rs.6,000/- per month adopted by the learned MACT is approved and accepted as inclusive of future prospects. Even in the absence of appeal by claimants, the just and adequate nature of compensation can be considered by the appellate Court is the spirit of the authorities cited above and it has become the settled practice to consider the adequate nature of compensation even in the absence of appeal by the claimants and enhance the compensation awarded by the learned MACT. 37. In the case on hand towards the transportation of dead body Rs.2,000/- is awarded, towards loss of consortium of Rs.5,000/- is awarded, towards funeral expenditure Rs.2,000/- is awarded. No amount is awarded under the head of loss of estate. Therefore, this Court find it proper to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded to see that just compensation is awarded to the victims under the heads to which they are entitled. All the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium i.e. claimant No.1 is entitled under the head of spousal consortium, clamant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled under the head of parental consortium and claimant No.4 is entitled under the head of filial consortium. The claimants are entitled for funeral expenditure at Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate at Rs. 15,000/- transportation expenditure Rs.5,000/- s iSJi 24 claimed by them. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under those heads is required to be enhanced. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and 38. evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows; Fixed by this Appellate Court Granted by the MACT SI. Head No. Rs.8,10,000/- Rs.8,10,000/- of 1. Loss dependency Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.1,60,000/- of Rs.5,000/- Loss consortium 2. (Rs.40,000/- @ each claimant: 40,000x4) (towards first petitioner) Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,000/- 3. Transport charges Rs.15,000/- Rs.2,000/- Funeral 4. Expenses Rs.10,05,000/- Rs.8,19,000 /- Total: For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the appellant Insurance Company and in favour of the claimants concluding that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,05,000/- and both the Respondents are liable to be pay the same. 39. r-i 25 . r/ Point No.4: 40. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1, 2 and 3, Point No.4 is answered as follows; In the result, The appeal is dismissed. However, (i) (ii) compensation awarded by the learned MACT Rs.8,19,000/- is modified and enhanced to Rs. 10,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. at (iii) The compensation amount awarded shall be deposited within a period of six (06) weeks from now, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited. The enhanced part of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in tune with the apportionment made by the learned MACT. There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall (iv) (V) stand closed. K SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ■K' ge- • //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Nellore at Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District '0 2. One CC to SRI. Nagumantri Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. Koppula Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies YM I HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.40 of 2017 X 2 5 lUN m B ^ . Current Section THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ! i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AWIARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40 OF 2017 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented its Branch Manager, Dargamitta. Nellore. ...APPELLANT AND B Radamma, W/o. LateVijaya Bhaskar Reddy. Hindu, Aged about: 36 Years R/o Kotha Vellanti. Nellore Rural Mandal. SPSR Nellore District. 1. Bellum Hemantha Reddy, S/o LateVijaya Bhaskar Reddy Hindu, aged about 19 Years. R/o Kotha Vellanti. Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2. BellumVijayapriya, D/o LateVijaya Bhaskar Reddy Hindu, aged about 17 years. R o Kotha Vellanti. Nellore Rural Mandal. SPSR Nellore District. 3. Bellum Kavamma, W/o Late Anantha Reddy. Hindu. Aged about 57 years. R/o Kotha Vellanti. Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. (Respondent no.3 being minor, represented by her Mother/natural guardian respondent no.1 herein.) 4. *■ 5. K.Suresh, S/o Gopalaiah. Hindu, aged about not known Owner of the " Tipper hearing No.AP 26 Y 5898. R/o Chillakuru Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ,.>r *(R5 is Not Necessary Party) Exparty before the Lower Court ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act praying that the High court may be pleased to against the Judgment and Decree of the Chairman IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Nellore at Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District in O.P. 483/2014 dt. 08-09-2016 Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nagumantri Nageswara Rao for the Appellant and Sri Sri. Koppula Gopal for the Respondent No.1 to 4 This Court doth order and decree as follows: (i) That the appeal is be and hereby dismissed. (ii) That the compensation awarded by the MACT at Rs.8,19,000/- is modified and enhanced to Rs. 10,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. (iii) That the compensation amount awarded be deposited within a period of six (06) weeks from now, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited. V (iv) That enhanced part of compensation be apportioned among the claimants in tune with the apportionment made by the learned MACT. (v) That there be no order as to costs, in this appeal. SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Nellore at Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. 2. Three CD Copies YM f HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.40 of 2017 s 25JUN 2025 f ^ . Current Section ^ ^ ^fSPATC\^^ THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED