APHC011415702016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 429/2023 Between: 1. PATAN MASTAN KHAN, S/O MAHABOOB KHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, COOLIE, 2. SUBHANI KHAN, S/O MAHOOB KHAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, COOLIE, 3. SAJJALA KHAN, S/O MAHABOOB KHAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, COOLIE, 4. ANVARULLA KHAN, S/O MAHABOOB KHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, COOLIE, 5. SHAIK JARINA, S/O BAJI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,HOUSE WIFE ALL ARE RESIDING AT KANAGALA VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. BEZAWADA RAMA DEVI, W/O RAMA BABU, AGE NOT KNOWN, D.NO.2-24, PEDAVEGI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY LEGAL MANAGER, E-8, RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTAN STATE ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobegs to present this Memorandum of Motor accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order and decree dated 19-5-2015 made in M.V.O.P.No. 728/2013 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur district IA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 2051 OF 2016 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 condone the delay of (235) days in filing the above appeal against the order and decree dated 19-5-2015 made in M.V.O.P.No. 728/2013 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HEMANTH KUMAR VENNA 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.429 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the order dated 19.05.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No.728 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Guntur, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. (a) This is a case of death. The deceased, aged 65 years, while proceeding to her village by road near Velappa Canal NH-216 road, lorry bearing No.AP 37T 4389 dashed her, thereby she sustained severe injuries, and ultimately, after being treated at Government General Hospital, succumbed on 12.04.2013. The incident is reported to police and Crime No.36 of 2013 came to be registered for offence under Section 337 of IPC and subsequently, altered as Section 304-A of IPC against driver of offending lorry. The claimants, who are major sons and daughters, initiated claim under Section 163-A of M.V.Act seeking compensation of 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.429 of 2023 ₹1,50,000/-. It is claimed that deceased was doing coolie work and earning about ₹100/- per day. (b) 1st respondent owner of the lorry remained ex parte and 2nd respondent – insurer filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident occurred and also that the driver of lorry was negligent in causing the accident. Further, it was also pleaded that claimants were not dependents on earnings of the deceased, as such, they cannot claim any loss of dependency. Besides, age, income and the compensation claimed have been denied and disputed. (c) Upon considering the pleadings, Tribunal has framed following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 37T 4389, and that resulted in causing the death of the deceased Patan Hanifa Bi, wife of Mahaboob Khan? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount, and against whom? 3. To what relief? 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.429 of 2023 (d) For the claimants, the second claimant came to be examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. None were examined for Insurer, however, the policy was marked as Ex.B1. (e) The Tribunal, after going through the evidence on record, has come to conclusion that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and thereby the deceased has succumbed. However, while coming to the other issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal concluded that as the claimants were not dependents on deceased, being majors and also married, considering the fact that the driver of offending vehicle has already settled an amount of ₹50,000/- as compensation to the claimants, assessed and awarded compensation of ₹50,000/- along with interest @9% per annum. (f) Assailing the same, present appeal is filed. 4. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Hemanth Kumar, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent – Insurer. 5. Learned counsel for appellants contended that as the claim has been instituted under Section 163(A), the Tribunal ought to have strictly followed the schedule to the said provision in awarding 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.429 of 2023 compensation, rather, it had merely awarded ₹50,000/-, which is not in consonance with the scheme of the Act. The evidence on record suggests that deceased was attending to the job of coolie and earning ₹100/- per day, which translates into ₹36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal ought to have assessed the income as ₹1,44,000/- after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Further, it also ought to have awarded ₹2000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹2,500/- towards loss of estate, in total ₹1,48,500/-. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for 2nd respondent – Insurer tried to sustain the impugned order by contending that there is no evidence to suggest the deceased was earning ₹100/- per day, therefore, the amount determined by Tribunal towards compensation does not call for any interference. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 8. There is no dispute with respect to the occurrence of accident and also the liability being fastened on the insurer, for the reason that insurer has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order. Deceased died on 12.04.2013. The evidence of P.W.2 suggests that she was doing coolie work and earning ₹100/- per day. As against the said evidence, the insurer, except for 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.429 of 2023 contending that the amount earned is on higher side, nothing has been placed on record to suggest otherwise. Even as per minimum wages applicable to any unskilled worker, an amount of ₹100/- per day would definitely be reasonable. The Tribunal did not disbelieve the income of deceased to be ₹100/- per day, however, it has not determined the compensation with reference to the 2nd schedule to the Act. The schedule clearly provides for the mode and method of determination of compensation for third-party fatal accidents. Since, as per post mortem report, age of deceased is stated to be 65 years, therefore, considering the same and considering the income of deceased as ₹100/- per day, which translates to ₹36,000/- per year, and by applying multiplier of 5, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of ₹1,44,000/-. Further under the heads of general damages, the schedule also provides for funeral expenses of ₹2,000/- and loss of estate for ₹2,500/-. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have strictly followed aforesaid schedule rather than notionally fixing compensation of ₹50,000/- in all. 9. In view of the same, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by Tribunal requires to be modified. By applying the second schedule to Section 163(A), as discussed above, the 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.429 of 2023 claimants are entitled to ₹1,48,500/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 10. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed by modifying the order dated 19.05.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No.728 of 2013 by awarding compensation of ₹1,48,500/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The 2nd respondent – Insurer shall pay the enhanced amount of compensation, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 17.09.2025 SS