Reserved on 12.09.2025 Pronounced on 14.11.2025 Uploaded on 19.11.2025 APHC010183342017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1899/2017 Between: 1. M YERRAMMA AND ANOTHER, W/O. RAMANAYYA HOUSEHOLD R/O. D.NO. 1-79 BC COLONY CHINNA KOVVADA VILLAGE, RANASTALAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM 2. MYLAPALLI RAMANAYYA, S/O. SATHIVADU @ SATHEYYA] COOLIE R/O. D.NO. 1-79 BC COLONY CHINNA KOVVADA VILLAGE, RANASTALAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. SABAVATTU SURESH AND 2 OTHERS, S/O. NARENDRA DRIVER OF VEHICLE I.E, LORRY NO. AP 26 U 7119 C/O. MANGILAL H.NO. 77-146/4 NEAR GAYATRI PUBLIC SCHOOL, PAYAKARAOPETA VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT NATIVE D.NO. 2-236 YELLAMNMA THANDA, RR DISTRICT 2. R NAGABABU, OWNER OF CEHICLE IE LORRY NO,. AP 26 U 7119 D.NO. 52-2-6 VIDYANAGAR COLONY, VIJAYAWADA 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS GM E-8 EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA JAIPUR RAJASTHAN STATE 302022 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toaggrieved by the decree and judgment dt. 07/11/2016 in MVOP.No. 389 of 2013 on the file of the MACT IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 3447 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 condone the delay of 144 days in filing the Appeal against the decree and order dt. 07/11/2016 in MVOP.No. 389 of 2013 on the file of the chairman, MACT-cum- 1st Additional District Judge, Srikakulam Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. TANDASA RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 3 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 JUDGMENT: Heard, Smt.T.Radha Rani, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. 1. This appeal was preferred by the claimants against the Award, dated 07.11.2016, passed in M.V.O.P.No.389 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The facts germane to the case are that, on 07.12.2011, the deceased and the claimants along with others were engaged as coolies in the accident lorry for the purpose of loading and unloading and they boarded the said accident lorry at Kosta junction, Ranasthalam Mandalam, Srikakulam District. At about 08.00 AM, when the accident lorry reached near Kokkirapalli junction on NH-16 road, Yelamanchili Mandalam, the 1st respondent being the driver of the accident lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and applied sudden brakes, due to which the iron rods in the lorry fell on the deceased and the stomach of the deceased was crushed, thereby, he died on the spot. The deceased body was shifted to Government Hospital, Yelamanchili, for postmortem and basing on the report of the 2nd claimant/father of the deceased, the Station House Officer, Yelamanchili Rural Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.110/2011 under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code against the 1st respondent - driver of accident lorry and thereupon charge sheet was filed. 4 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 4. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased being daily wage earner was getting Rs.6,000/- per month and he used to contribute the same to the claimants/family. The deceased was aged about 16 years and he was hale and healthy and the claimants are dependents on the earnings of the deceased and due to his sudden death, the claimants are deprived of the earnings of the deceased. They also suffered a lot of mental agony, pain and suffering due the sudden death of the deceased and thereby claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 5. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the 3rd respondent, who is the insurer, filed his written statement stating that the allegations leveled in the petition are incorrect and the 1st respondent, who was the driver, had no driving license on the date of accident and the 2nd respondent knowing the same willfully handed over the accident lorry to the 1st respondent and thus the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were duly violated. The further arguments advanced is that the alleged accident lorry is only meant for carrying goods and it is not having any permit to carry passengers in it and the deceased is not supposed to travel in the said goods vehicle, as such, the deceased is an unauthorized passenger to the accident lorry. He further asserts that he did not collect any additional premium to cover the risk of coolies and that more number of persons were travelling in the said lorry than its capacity and argued that he is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent-driver of lorry bearing Regn. No. AP 26 U 7119? ii. Whether the claimants are entitled for claim of compensation? If, so, to how much amount and from which of the respondents? 5 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 iii. To what relief? 7. The reasons dwelled by the Tribunal for the issue No.1 is that there is no dispute with regard to the accident, involvement of the accident lorry in the accident and the death of the deceased due to the said accident and it is also not denied by the 3rd respondent regarding the relationship between the claimants and the deceased. The factum of the driver driving in a rash and negligent manner and due to applying sudden brakes, which resulted in the accident and thereby the deceased succumbed is also not strongly objected to. Nothing is elicited during the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the insurer and the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector - Ex.A3 would also clearly establish that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident lorry and not because of any mechanical defects of the vehicle and answered the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. In regard to the compensation and to their eligibility, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 16 years on the date of accident, coupled with Ex.A4 and A5 i.e., Certified copies of Postmortem Examination Report and Inquest Report, which establishes that the deceased age was 16. 8. Coming to the earning capacity of the deceased, the pleadings of the claimants would throw light that the deceased was a coolie and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month i.e., Rs.200/- per day. However, in the absence of any evidence that he is earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased, has fixed the earnings of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income. The total income as assessed by the Tribunal was Rs.36,000/- per annum and after deducting half of the income it comes to Rs.18,000/-. Further, as the deceased was minor and unmarried, the age of the mother of the deceased was taken into consideration to assess the loss of dependency and the age of the mother of the deceased was taken as „40‟ as on the date of accident. However, 6 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 considering Ex.A2-charge sheet and Ex.A6-Inquest Report, the age of the mother of the deceased was fixed at 43 and the same falls within the age group of 41-45 years and as per the pronouncement in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another1, for a person aged in between 41-45 years, the multiplier as per the table is 14. The amount of Rs.18,000/- is multiplied by 14, which comes to Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.18,000/- x 14). In addition to this, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and transport charges and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection and expectation of future life, etc., was awarded, and thereby the amount totaling into Rs.2,87,000/- towards compensation. 9. In respect of liability to pay the compensation, elaborate discussion was made by the Tribunal. In the evidence adduced by both the parties which amplifies that they are travelling as engaged coolies for loading and unloading purpose, not with regard to the accident vehicle but elsewhere, and boarded the accident vehicle due to which the Tribunal formulated the deceased as „gratuitous passenger‟. With regard to this finding, this Court is of the opinion that the same cannot be interfered in view of the evidence adduced by the 3rd respondent - insurer and the compensation is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle and not by the insurer. 10. In view of the legion of pronouncements, it is no more res integra that in respect of gratuitous passenger, the insurer cannot be saddled and it is only the owner of the vehicle. But, however, the findings are that the insurer be initially to pay the awarded compensation and later part recover from the owner, since the said legal issue is no more res integra. When coming to the application of multiplier method, Sarla Verma‟s case (supra) was noted and compensation was fixed after applying the multiplier method. 1 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 7 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 11. Having heard both the counsel, it appears that there is no dispute with the facts and circumstances of the case, but the learned counsel for the appellants had argued vehemently that the Tribunal has totally misdirected in taking Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income and granting Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses. 12. In oppugnation, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent -insurance company has supported his arguments as stated before the Tribunal and maintained that any interference with the order of the Tribunal is unwarranted and need not be interfered. 13. As stated ibid, there is no dispute regarding the facts leading to the case, but the question that arises for consideration is: “Whether the deceased who was travelling in the accident lorry be treated as a gratuitous passenger and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?” 14. The age of the deceased when the accident occurred was 16 years and though the claimants claimed Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation towards the loss of their deceased son, no evidence was placed regarding the income and the Tribunal has taken note of the same and considered Rs.3,000/- per month. The multiplicand taken by the Tribunal was ‟14‟, which is derived considering the age of the mother of the deceased at the time of the accident. The notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.3,000/- which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum (Rs.3000/- X 12). The reason for taking the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration appears to be contrary to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Sali and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others2. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while considering the determination of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that the multiplier to be 2 (2012) 11 SCC 738 8 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 taken in the case of the deceased should not be on the basis of the age of the dependants and the age of the deceased to be taken into consideration. At paragraph No.15, the Apex Court held as follows: “The selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependant. There may a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependants has no nexus with the computation of the compensation”. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the age of the mother of the deceased taken into consideration by the Tribunal is not proper and liable to be interfered. 15. In the case of National Insurance Company vs. Kancherla Mary and Another3, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: “In all these judgments, it was held that an unauthorised/gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods carriage is not entitled to claim from the insurance company though such passenger or his/her dependants are entitled to recover compensation from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Thus a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is not covered in the insurance policy and a third party claim for the death/injury of such gratuitous passenger is not maintainable.” 16. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Vedwati and Others4, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows: “The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability.” 3 2012 ACJ 2419 4 2007 ACJ 1043 9 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 17. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor vs. Pasupuleti Subbamma and Others5, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: “The accident in the instant case had taken place on 19.10.2001, on which date, admittedly, the driver of the accident vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Vidhyadhar Mahariwalas case (2 supra) and in Suresh Chandra Aggarwals case (5 supra), certainly, it has to be held that, the driver did not have valid and subsisting driving licence at the relevant time and that the same accounts for violation of conditions of policy - Ex.B1, disentitling the respondents 1 and 2 claimants from making claim against the Insurance Company appellant herein. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside allowing the instant appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal in fastening liability on the appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 claimants for the death of the deceased is concerned.” 18. In the case of Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Saju P. Paul and Another6, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows: “Goods Vehicle – Gratuitous passenger – Liability of Insurance Company – Pay and recover order – Driver employed by owner of truck for some other vehicle owned by him was travelling in the cabin of truck, truck capsized and driver sustained injuries – Claimant claimed that he was a spare driver in the vehicle, he was not driving the vehicle at that time but he was directed by his employer to go to worksite – Premium covering the risk of one driver and one cleaner was paid – Risk of any other employee or second or spare driver was not covered under the Policy – Whether injured was a gratuitous passenger and insurance company is not liable – Yes; claimant directed to withdraw the amount deposed by Insurance company and insurance company may recover the amount from insured by initiating proceedings before executing court”. 19. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Dedisetti Ramanamma and Others7, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: “Motor Insurance – Goods Vehicle – Passenger risk – Liability of insurance company – Pay and recover order – Several persons boarded a goods vehicle and driver collected fare from each of them 5 2016 (3) ALD 445 6 2013 ACJ 554 (SC) 7 2014 ACK 1224 10 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 – Driver handed over the vehicle to cleaner for driving and went to sleep – Vehicle turned turtle resulting in death of 4 passengers – Tribunal found that deceased persons were not authorized fare passengers – Tribunal found that deceased persons were not authorized fare paying passengers, excepted insurance company from liability and made owner, driver and cleaner of vehicle jointly and severally liable – Whether Tribunal was justified in directing insurance company to first pay compensation amount and then recover it from owner – Held : yes.” 20. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. A.Manoharan and Others8, the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, held as follows: “Motor Insurance – Goods Vehicle – Passenger risk – Liability of insurance company – Passenger risk – Gratuitous passenger – Liability of Insurance company – Pay and recover order – Passenger travelling in a load auto after unloading cotton goods in market sustained injuries when the vehicle met with accident – Tribunal fond that injured traveled as owner of goods in the load auto but instead of one person, three persons traveled as owner or loan man therefore directed the insurance company to pay and recover – Contention that injured traveled in the back side of load auto and he was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle – Evidence that claimant along with his family members traveled as owner of goods and the accident took place when they were returning after unloading the goods in market and concerned persons could not be termed as a gratuitous passengers – If a person could travel in the back side of the Vehicle while carrying goods then there is nothing wrong in travelling in the back side of the vehicle after unloading the goods – Whether injured was travelling as owner of goods and Tribunal was justified in directing the insurance company to pay compensation and then recover the amount from owner of the vehicle – Held : yes”. 21. In the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Katragadda Vijaya Lakshmi and Others9, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 169 (1) – Claims Tribunal – Procedure and Powers – Pay and recover order – Tribunal found that insurance company is not liable as there was breach of policy but directed the insurance company to pay and recover – Insurance company contended that right of giving such direction is vested only with Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and not with the High Court and Tribunal – Whether Tribunal has power to decide disputes inter se between insurer and insured and it rightly 8 2016 ACJ 1437 9 2016 ACJ 291 11 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 directed the insurance company to pay and recover the compensation – Held; yes; even if insurance company proves breach of policy by owner – insured in accordance with the provision of Section 149, Tribunal can direct that insurance company is entitled to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of Tribunal.” 22. As the age of the deceased at the time of death is 16 years and the multiplier, if taken as per Sarla Verma‟s case, it should be „18‟ as mentioned in the Column-4 of the table in the said judgment. When coming to the income of the deceased at the time of death as per the claim by the claimants was Rs.6,000/- as per the notional income of a coolie. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited10, held that the notional income of a coolie during the year 2010 was fixed at Rs.7,500/-. 23. In the case of Abdul Salam vs. Najma V.T. and others11, the High Court of Kerala at paragraph No.18 held as follows: “The petitioners claim is that the deceased was getting a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. However, the petitioners could not prove the income of the deceased as claimed in the claim petition. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,750/- only. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie during the year 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-. In the above circumstances, the notional income of the deceased is fixed as that of coolie at Rs.7,500/-.” 24. Though the deceased lost his life in the year 2011, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the notional income of Rs.7,500/-, as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the High Court of Kerala in Ramachandrappa’s case and Abdul Salam’s case respectively, cannot be applied in the present case. 10 (2011) 13 SCC 236 11 2025 KER 11461 12 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 25. For the foregoing reasons, this Court deems it fit to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12) per annum . Since the deceased was minor and unmarried and the claimants are two in number, half of the annual income of the deceased, i.e., (Rs.72,000/- X ½) an amount of Rs.36,000/- has to be taken into account to assess the loss of the dependency of claimants. As per Sarla Verma‟s case (supra 1), the multiplier comes to „18‟ and the amount comes to Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 18), which would be just and reasonable. The Lord Denning has pen down regarding the compensation as follows: “The measure of damages is to put injured person in as good a position as if the accident had not happened, so far as money can do it”. 26. In view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in 1) State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh [AIR 1955 SC 84]; 2) Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retired) and Another vs. Union of India and others [2017 (10) SCC 1]; and 3) Bangalore Water-Supply and Sewerage Board vs. R.Rajappa and Others [(1978) 2 SCC 213], this Court is conscious of the fact that the law is not static but an ever-evolving dynamic concept. Courts, while discharging their judicial functions are not to be guided merely by the circumstances that existed in the past but must mould their orders in accordance with the facts, equities and exigencies prevailing on the date of consideration. Justice being a living ideal, the interpretation and application of law must respond to the changing conditions of society and the realities of the everyday life, rather than remain confined to history and rigid precedents. 27. The law regarding the liability to pay the compensation by the insurer or by the owner of the vehicle in respect of a gratuitous passenger is no more stare decisis. The insurer need to initially pay the compensation and 13 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 later recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. This was correctly answered by the Tribunal, by referring the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the decisions of this Court (referred to supra). 28. The Tribunal, while properly considering the amounts to be paid towards funeral and transport charges, has awarded Rs.10,000/- and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection and expectation of future life, etc., and the same need not be interfered with. 29. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of the above observations. 30. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimants herein from Rs.2,87,000/- to Rs.6,83,000/- (Rs.6,48,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) for the death of their son with interest @ 9% per annum. The 3rd respondent – insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier. The insurer is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner, as stated above in the earlier paragraphs. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same in equal shares i.e., at Rs.3,41,500/- each. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee on the compensation amount awarded over and above the amount claimed in the Claim Petition. 31. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 14-11-2025 Note : L.R. copy to be marked B/o BMS/Tsy 14 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA +MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1899 of 2017 Between: # M. Yerrama and Another ...PETITIONERS AND $ Sabavattu Suresh and two others ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 14.11.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 15 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017 * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA + MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1899 of 2017 % 14.11.2025 # Between: # M. Yerramma and Another ...PETITIONERS AND $ Sabavattu Suresh and two others ...RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Smt. T. Radha Rani ! Counsel for Respondents: Sri Gudi Srinivasu <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 2. (2012) 11 SCC 738 3. 2012 ACJ 2419 4. 2007 ACJ 1043 5. 2016 (3) ALD 445 6. 2013 ACJ 554 (SC) 7. 2014 ACK 1224 8. 2016 ACJ 1437 9. 2016 ACJ 291 10. (2011) 13 SCC 236 11. 2025 KER 11461 12. AIR 1955 SC 84 13. 2017 (10) SCC 1 14. (1978) 2 SCC 213