APHC011390012014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.765 of 2025 Between: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ANAKAPALLE DIVISION, ANAKAPALLE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. THE POSTMASTER - GENERAL, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM-17. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. NAGIREDDI JALAMMA, W/O LATE SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT DHARMAVARAM STREET, YELLAMANCHILII VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. AKULA KANAKA NAGA VENKATA LAKSHMI, D/O.LATE SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT DHARMAVARAM STREET, YELLAMANCHILI, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. EETHA SANTHOSHI @ SANDHYA, D/O LATE SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT DHARMAVARAM STREET, YELLAMANCHILI, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. NAGIREDDY DEVI PRASAD, S/O.LATE SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT DHARMAVARAM STREET, YELLAMANCHILI, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. NAGIREDDY GANGARAJU, W/O.LATE ADHINARAYANA, 2 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 HINDU, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT DHARMAVARAM STREET, YELLAMANCHILI, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. JAGARAPU BANGARAYYA, S/O.VENKATA SWAMY, HINDU, AGED 70 YEARS , DRIVER OF JEEP, R/O DNO.5-133, ADAVIVARAM POST OFFICE STREET, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR The Court made the following: 3 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.765 of 2025 J U D G M E N T: The present Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed assailing the order and decree dated 25.07.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.827 of 2012 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. By aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,93,000/- to the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein) along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till realization, on account of death of one Nagireddy Suryanarayana @ Suribabu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident. 2. Parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 24.01.2012, while the deceased was walking on the left side of road at Upmaka Arch of Nakkapalli Village, he was hit by a jeep bearing registration No.AP 32 3755, belonging to respondent Nos.2 and 3, which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the deceased sustaining multiple 4 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 grievous injuries all over the body. He was initially shifted to Community Health Centre at Nakkapalli and later to K.G. Hospital at Visakhapatnam, where he was declared brought dead. The incident was reported to the police and Crime No.9 of 2012 was registered for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. against the driver of the jeep. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the driver. The deceased was stated to be aged about 47 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a security guard as on the date of accident. Therefore, wife, three children and mother of the deceased laid the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident. (ii) Respondent No.1- driver of offending jeep remained ex parte. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the owners of the offending vehicle, filed counter denying the manner in which the accident occurred and asserting that the driver of the jeep was neither negligent nor responsible for causing the accident. It was pleaded that the deceased had crossed the highway by jumping the barricades between the two lanes of the national highway, and though the driver of the jeep attempted to slow down by applying the brakes, the deceased dashed into the jeep. Therefore, it was contended that the deceased was solely responsible for causing the 5 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 accident, which resulted in his death, and no liability can be fastened on them. Further, they also denied the avocation, age, and earnings of the deceased. (iii) Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues for consideration: “1) Whether the death of the deceased Nagireddy Suryanarayana was due to the accident that occurred on 24.1.2012 and whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP 32- 3755? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) Relief?” (iv) In support of the claim, first claimant, wife of the deceased, was examined as P.W.1, besides examining an eye- witness to the accident as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the driver of jeep and Public Relations Inspector (Postal), who was travelling in the same jeep, were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 respectively and no documents were marked. (v) Considering the evidence adduced by the claimants, in particular that of P.W.2/eye-witness to the incident and Exs.A1 to A4, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to 6 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. Having concluded so, it proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation. Though a claim was made that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as security guard, in the absence of any documentary evidence to that effect, the Tribunal considered the minimum wages applicable at the relevant point of time and accordingly, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. After deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of ‘13’, it determined the loss of dependency as Rs.4,68,000/-. Additionally, it awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. In total, a sum of Rs.4,93,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants along with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. (vi) Assailing the same, respondent No.2 and 3 before the Tribunal filed the present appeal. 4. Heard Sri N. Adiseshaiah, leaerned counsel representing the learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for appellants, and Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants. 7 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for appellants mainly contended that the deceased, while attempting to cross the national highway, without noticing the approaching jeep, dashed into it, and since the accident occurred due to his own negligence, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened liability on the appellants. He further contended that, for the purpose of initiating the present claim, the claimants, at the first instance, ought to have issued notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., and as they failed to comply with the same, the claim is not maintainable. With regard to the quantum of compensation, he contended that the amounts awarded are excessive. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants tried to support the impugned order with respect to liability aspect, by contending that the Tribunal, upon evaluation of the entire evidence on record, particularly that of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A5, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the jeep, therefore, the said finding is justified. However, with regard to determination of compensation, he contended that the Tribunal failed to award just and fair compensation. He argued that the income of the deceased was assessed on lower side and that the Tribunal failed to award future prospects and also appropriate amounts under conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate in 8 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi 1. He, therefore, urged for determination of just and fair compensation. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions of both counsels. 8. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows: (i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal fixing liability on the appellants to pay compensation for the death of the deceased, suffers from any perversity? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants is just and reasonable, or is liable to be reduced or enhanced? (iii) To what relief? 9. At the outset, the submission of learned counsel for appellants that unless a notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is issued, the claim could not have been entertained by the Tribunal, has no merit. The Motor Vehicles Act, under which the compensation is awarded, is beneficial in nature and it confers upon the Tribunal specific functions and powers in determining the just compensation. The Tribunal is required to consider the aspect of determination of just and fair 1 2017 ACJ 2700 9 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 compensation, which is an exclusive function and jurisdiction assigned to it, and the same cannot, in any manner, be interfered with by any other authority. Therefore, the procedural requirement of issuing prior notice under Section 80 C.P.C. cannot be applied rigidly, particularly in claims arising under beneficial legislation. 10. Coming to the aspect of liability, it is not in dispute that the deceased died on account of the accident occurred on 24.01.2012. According to the claimants, while the deceased was walking on the left side of the road near Upmaka Arch of Nakkapalli Village on the national highway, he was hit by the jeep driven by 1st respondent/ driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and died. 11. To support their case, the claimants relied upon the evidence of P.W.2, an eye-witness to the incident, and Ex.A1- copy of F.I.R., Ex.A2 - M.V.I. Report, Ex.A3 - Postmortem Report and Ex.A4 - Charge Sheet. The evidence of P.W.2, coupled with aforementioned documentary evidence, indicates that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending jeep. The initial burden of proof cast on the claimants was discharged by producing the above evidence. Consequently, the burden got shifted on respondent Nos.2 and 3 to disprove the allegation and establish that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of 10 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 the jeep, but was rather caused by the deceased himself, who was allegedly negligent while crossing the road. In support of their defence, the respondents examined the driver of offending jeep as R.W.1 and the Public Relations Inspector (Postal), who was also travelling in the jeep at the time of accident, as R.W.2. Both of them deposed that the accident occurred as the deceased suddenly jumped over the road divider. However, the Tribunal, while evaluating their evidence, observed that neither of them reported the incident to their higher authorities nor did the respondents make any effort to summon the investigating officer, who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the driver. The Tribunal has also observed that the driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and he did not choose to file a written statement to deny the manner in which the accident occurred. In the light of these facts, the Tribunal placed significant reliance on the evidence of P.W.2 and the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A4. 12. As regards reliability of F.I.R. and charge-sheet and other documents collected by investigating agency in the process of investigation and enquiry into the crimes registered on account of the Motor Accidents Cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2 held that aforesaid documents, in 2(2018) 5 SCC 656 11 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 particular charge sheet, prima facie points towards the driver’s complicity in driving vehicle negligently and rashly and even if the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal cases, the same may be of no effect on assessment of liability in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The said view came to be expressed considering the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Crux3, which held that plea of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle as set up by claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The said view has later been followed and reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi4. Even recently in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Saho 5, the exposition in aforesaid judgments has been reiterated. 13. In the instant case, by adducing sufficient oral and documentary evidence as discussed above, the claimants have discharged the burden of proof cast upon them to establish that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the jeep, which was not effectively rebutted by the respondents. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Tribunal on the aspect of 3(2013) 10 SCC 646 4 (2023) 13 SCC 510 5 (2025) 2 SCC 599 12 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 liability do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the monthly income of the deceased, as was fixed by the Tribunal, is on higher side. However, this Court is not convinced with the said submission. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at only Rs.4,000/-. Even based on the minimum wages payable at the relevant point of time, the income so assessed appears to be reasonable and justified. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said assessment. 15. So far as future prospects and other amounts payable under the conventional heads are concerned, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled for future prospects at the rate of 25% on the earnings of the deceased. So far as amounts payable under other conventional heads are concerned, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others6,Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others7, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder 6 (2018) 11 SCC 780 7 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682 13 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.8, and Rojalini Nayak and others v. Ajit Sahoo and others9, the claimants are entitled to the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, at Rs.48,400/- (per claimant), Rs.18,150/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively, as was awarded in Rojalini’s case (supra). 16. Thus, by awarding future prospects at the rate of 25% on the earnings of the deceased and other amounts payable under conventional heads, the just and fair compensation to which the claimants are entitled under various heads is determined as under: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income ₹4,000/- x 12 = ₹48,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 47 years) ₹12,000/- (i.e., 25% of the income) Total Income ₹60,000/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4th) ₹15,000/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹45,000/- 5 Multiplier of ‘13’ for the age of 47 years 13 x ₹45,000/- = ₹5,85,000/- Conventional Heads: 8 (2021) 11 SCC 780 9 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 14 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 6 (i) Loss of consortium (5 claimants) ₹2,42,000/- (₹48,400/- x 5) (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 7 Total Compensation ₹8,63,300/- 17. It is well settled that irrespective of the fact that the claimants have neither preferred an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation nor filed cross-objections in the appeal filed by insurer or owner, the claimants are still entitled to be considered for grant of just and fair compensation. In Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited v. Marreddy Sowmya and others 10, this Court, having referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue, held as under at paragraph No.16: “16. It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation and that endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred any appeal for enhancement or filed cross objection in the appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. We had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others 11, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance 10 2025 SCC OnLine AP 466 11 MACMA No.934/2015, dated 09.01.2025 15 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 Company Limited12, Surekha v. Santosh13, Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali14 and Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod (Supra 5). As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.” 18. In the light of the above, this Court holds that respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants are entitled to the just and fair compensation of Rs.8,63,300/- as determined above, along with costs and interest at the rate or 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 19. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed, by granting the enhanced compensation in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 5. 20. Respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants are, therefore, awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.8,63,300/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited by the appellants, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants 12 (2022) 14 SCC 712 13 (2021) 16 SCC 467 14 (2021) 17 SCC 148 16 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 are entitled to withdraw the same in proportionate shares as provided under the impugned judgment. It is needless to observe that respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants shall pay the differential court fee before withdrawing the compensation. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 30.08.2025 IBL 17 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.No.765 of 2025 Dt: 30.08.2025 IBL