1 APHC011000802017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3088/2017 Between: 1. A.P.S.R.T.C, REP. by its vice Chairman And Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Now At Vijayawada. ...APPELLANT AND 1. Puppala Satyanarayana Died, - 2. Puppala Chinnari, D/0 Satyanarayana, Resident Of Ravurupadu Village, Tallapudi Mandal West Godavari District. 3. Puppala babi, s/o satyanarayana, aged 17 years resident of ravurupadu village, tallapudi mandal west godavari district. 3rd respondent being minor rep. By his sister 2nd respondent 4. Nitta Abbulu, S/O Raja Rao Aged About 30 Years, Driver, Resident Of Nallajerla Village And Mandal West Godavari District ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.3088 of 2017 JUDGMENT: I. Introductory:- This is an appeal directed against the award and decree dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur [for short “MACT”], passed in M.V.O.P.No.13 of 2016, questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded at Rs.8,00,00/- as against a claim made for Rs.8,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent before the learned MACT filed the present appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as the claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. 3. Claiming compensation for the death of one Kuppala Syamala Devi [herein after referred as ‘the deceased’] in a motor vehicle accident, her husband and children filed the claim petition before the learned MACT. Factual Matrix:- 4. [i] The deceased –K.Syamala Devi aged about ‘43’ years, attending labour work and earning Rs.4,500/- per month, by the date of accident. 3 [ii] On 01.12.2015 the deceased while returning home, when she was at Yelukaladibba near Bayyanagudem village, within the limits of Koyyalagudem Police Station, West Godavari District, at about 8.30 p.m. the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 2226 [herein after referred as ‘the offending vehicle’] came in a rash and negligent manner dashed her, causing instantaneous death. [iii] A case in Crime No.212 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC was registered in Koyyalagudem Police Station against the 1st respondent. [iv] It is claimed that the 1st respondent is the driver and the 2nd respondent is owner and operator of the bus. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are husband and children of the deceased. 5. [i] Claim was resisted by the 2nd respondent/appellant herein, contending that the petitioners/claimants shall prove the age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of claimants and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, while attributing negligence to the deceased. [ii] Learned MACT settled the issues touching his negligence and entitlement of the claimant for compensation and held the issue relating to negligence, in favour of the claimants referring to the evidence 4 of eye witness, PW.2 and the Police record as well as the absence of any evidence, on the part of the respondents (appellant herein). [iii] With regard to the entitlement for compensation, learned MACT adopted the age of the deceased at ‘45’ with reference to Postmortem examination, income at Rs.4000/- per month notionally and calculated the same at Rs.6,72,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency/financial loss and Rs.1,03,000/- towards non- pecuniary compensation, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, in all Rs.8,00,00/-. Submissions for the appellant-APSRTC:- 6. [i] For accepting income of the deceased at Rs.4000/-, there is no basis. [ii] Reasoning for believing the negligence is not rational. [iii] The compensation awarded is excessive. Submissions for the respondents:- 7. [i] Future prospects are not added. [ii] Accepted income of Rs.4000/- is low. [iii] Compensation is not awarded under all the heads to which the claimants are entitled. 8. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 5 9. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 01.12.2015 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-? if so, to what quantum? 3) Whether the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or require any interference, if so, to what extent? 4) What is the result of the appeal ? Point No.1:- Precedential Guidance:- 10. 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 accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent. 6 11. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation1, 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. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond 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..” 12. In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors.2, the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V. Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of 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: Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being 1 2009 (13) SCC 530 2 2009 Supreme (AP) 136=2010(2) ALD 403=2009(3) ALT 260 7 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 was conferred with the powers of a civil Court for the specified purposes and under Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims Tribunal was 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 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 8 the object and scheme of the Act, is a directory provision referring to some of the documents which 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 report alone should be the conclusive basis for determining the manner of the accident, even in spite of the availability of other dependable evidence on record on that aspect, will be offending the plain language of the statute and if that were the purport of sub-rule (7), it cannot be considered valid, as any such delegated legislation cannot travel beyond the legislation itself.” Evidence and Analysis:- 13. PW.2-B.Nageswara Rao is an eye witness to the accident. He has stated about the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. His evidence did not shake during cross-examination. Crime is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle vide Ex.A1-F.I.R. and he was charge sheeted vide Ex.A5. There is no evidence from the appellant side diluting the evidence of claimants. Therefore, in the light of the provisions of the Section 476 (7) of M.V. Act and in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi’s case [cited 1 supra] and the evidence available on record as to occurrence of the accident, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause of the accident, is found fit for acceptance. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimants and against the appellant. 9 Point No.2: Quantum of Compensation: Precedential guidance:- a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: 14. [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.3 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. [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. 3 2009 (6) SCC 121 10 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: 15. [i]. Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others4 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. [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 4 2017(16) SCC 680 11 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: 16. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others5, 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. d) Just Compensation: 17. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others6, 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 SCC 274 : 2003 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 (2013) 9 SCC 54 12 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (SCC 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 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. Evidence and Analysis:- 18. [i] There is no documentary evidence for the income of the deceased. Claimants are husband and children of the deceased. Death of the deceased due to accident is clear from the record and evidence. Therefore, they are entitled for compensation. [ii] Age of the deceased taken at ’45’, with reference to Post Mortem Report-Ex.A3, by the learned MACT is found fit to be accepted. There is no specific evidence as to the income of the deceased. [iii] The accident is of the year 2015. As per the pleadings vide para-4 column No.4 and 5, it is shown that the deceased is the wife and coolie and she was not an employee. Income taken at Rs.4000/- per 13 month and calculation made are required to be reconsidered in view of the socio-economic circumstances of the year 2015. [vi] Learned MACT observed that since notional income is taken into consideration, no amount is deducted towards personal expenditure. This observation is found incorrect. [vii] Considering the socio-economic circumstances, Rs.150/- per day can be taken as daily income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.4500/- per month and Rs.54,000/- p.a. Adding of at least 20% towards future prospects is possible upon considering the nature of employment for which the deceased is engaged, then the income of the deceased comes to [Rs.10,800/-+54,000/-]= Rs.64,800/-. 1/3rd of the same viz., Rs.21,600/-, fit to be deducted towards personal expenditure. Then the contribution of the deceased to the claimants will come to Rs.43,200/- and the same can be considered as multiplicand. Multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘14’. Hence, the entitlement of the claimants under the head of loss of dependency comes to [43,200/- x ‘14’] = 6,04,800/-. [viii] Claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. [ix] Claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. However, the claimant No.1 is died during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned MACT, hence, claimants No.2 and 3- 14 children of the deceased are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium, in total Rs.80,000/-. 19. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation is as follows: 20. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the entitlement of claimants for compensation is found at Rs.07,14,800/-. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered. Point No.3:- 21. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn under points 1 and 2, the impugned Award and Decree dated 30.06.2017 requires interference and the compensation awarded at Rs.8,00,000/- is modified awarding a sum of Rs. Rs.07,14,800/-. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered accordingly. Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,04,800/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 3. Funeral Expenditure Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of consortium [@Rs.40,000/-to claimants 2 & 3 each. 1st claimant is died ) Rs.80,000/- Total: Rs.07,14,800/- 15 Point No.4: 22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as follows:- [i] Compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. awarded under the impugned decree and order dated 30.06.2017 is modified to Rs.07,14,800/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. Apportionment: [ii] Claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for apportionment of compensation awarded, equally. [iii] Claimant No.2 is entitled to withdraw her share of compensation amount on deposit, at once. [iv] Claimant No.3 is entitled to withdraw his share of the compensation, upon proper recognition and declaration of majority and discharge of his guardian. [v] Time for deposit of compensation amount is two (02) months. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 25.07.2025 Pnr 16 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.3088 of 2017 25 .07. 2025 Pnr