i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AM^ IIQe FRIDAY, THE^POURTH DAY OF APRIL „ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE a PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 16 OF 2019 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Rep by its near 7 roads, Kadapa, YSR District ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Pollakayala Gangamma,W/o Late Pollakayala Rattaiah, Aged about 44 years,Hindu, Housewife, D.No. 1/242, Kothapeta, Chemullapalle, Khajipet mandal, YSR District presently residing at Near Nagalakataa Veedhi, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa City, YSR District 2. Pothuboena Sudha, W/o Ramakrishna, aged about 26 years, Hindu Housewife, D/o Late Pollakayala Rathaiah, D.No. 111/108, Chinnamachupalli village, YSR District 3. Pollakayala Venkata Lakshmi Prasanna, D/o Late Pollakayala Rathaiah, Aged about 21 years, HindLi,D.No. 1/242, Kothapeta, Chemullapalle, Khajipet mandal, YSR Districtipresently residing at Near Nagalakataa Veedhi, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa City, YSR District 4. Pollakayala Praveena, D/o Late Pollakayala Rathaiah, Aged about 19 years, Hindu, Student, D.No. 1/242, Kothapeta, Chemullapalle, Khajipet mandal, YSR District presently residing at Near Nagalakataa Veedhi, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa CitypYSR District ...Respondents 1-4/Petitioners 5. Om Prakash Jain, S/o Tikam Chand Jain, aged about Not known ‘ major, owner of the lorry bearing No. RJ-20-GA-0909, residing at Near Goverdhan dass Ji TempleiG/o Chand, Kheri Road Lines, Ramganjmandi Kota, Ramganjmandi, Rajastan State 6. Jamil khan, S/o Rajukhan, aged about 42 years. Driver of lorry bearing No. RJ-20-GA-0909, Residing at Domunork Mashed, Chinnachowk Street, Kota Town and District, Rajastan State. but ...Respondents (Respondent No.5 and 6 are not necessary parties in this petition) Appeal filed under Section 473 of M.V Act, against the award passed on 9'^ October 2018 in MVOP No; 600/2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. This appeal coming on for Hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree' of the Trial Court and the Suit and upon hearing Wrgbments of Sri. Advocate for the Appellant and Sri D Kodandarami Reddy Respondents. material papers in B Paramesewara Rao, Advocate for This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part; 2. That the compensation be and is hereby reduced from Rs.19,11,250/- to Rs. 15,06,250/- as indicated above, awarded by the order dated 09.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.600 of 2017 by the Chairman Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa; 3. That the directions given by the Tribunal with r ■' amounts, as apportioned by the Tribunal, be Motor regard to withdrawal of the made proportionately according to the amount of compensation now reduced' 4. That the rest of the directions ai ^ - given in respect of deposit of the compensation remained unaltered and affirmed as it is and \ 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO FFICER 1. The Motor Accidents Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kadaoa YSR Kadapa District ’ 2. Two CD copies To, RAM k HIGH COURT DATED: 04/04/2025 decree IVIACIVIA.No.16 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA IN PART WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 16 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the award passed on 9*'" October 2018 in MVOP No. 600/2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Rep by its near 7 roads, Kadapa, YSR District ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Pollakayala Gangamma, W/o Late Pollakayala Rattaiah, Aged about 44 years,Hindu, Housewife, D.No. 1/242, Kothapeta, Chemullapalle, Khajipet mandal, YSR District presently residing at Near Nagalakataa Veedhi, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa City, YSR District 2. Pothuboena Sudha, W/o Ramakrishna, aged about 26 years, Hindu, Housewife, D/o Late Pollakayala Rathaiah, D.No. 111/108, Chinnamachupalli village, YSR District 3. Pollakayala Venkata Lakshmi Prasanna, D/o Late Pollakayala Rathaiah, Aged about 21 years, Hindu, D.No. 1/242, Kothapeta, Chemullapalle, Khajipet mandal, YSR District presently residing at Near Nagalakataa Veedhi, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa City, YSR District h i 4. Pollakayala Praveena, D/o Late Pollakayala Rathaiah, years. Hindu. Student, D.No. 1/242, Kothapeta, Chemullapalle Aged about 19 Khajipet mandal. YSR District presentiy residing at Near Nagalakataa Veedhi, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa City, YSR District ...Respondents 1-4/Petitioners 5. Om Prakash Jain, S/o Tikam Chand Jain, aged about Not known, but major, owner of the iorry bearing No. RJ-20-GA-0909. residing at Near Goverdhan dass Ji Tempie, G/o Chand, Kheri Road Lines Ramganjmandi Kota, Ramganjmandi, Rajastan State 6. Jamii khan, S/o Rajukhan, aged about 42 years. Driver of iorry bearing No. RJ-20-GA-0909, Residing at Domunork Mashed. Chinnachowk Street, Kota Town and District, Rajastan State. ...Respondents (Respondent No.5 and 6 are not necessary parties in this petition) iA NO: 1 OF 201Q Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances S ated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay ail further proceedings pursuance of the award ya. ^ 9-10-2018 on the file of the MACs Judge, Kadapa, pending disposal passed in MVOP 600 of 2017 dated Tribunal-cum-Principal District of the main MAGMA. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. B Paramesewara Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D Kodandarami The Court made the following: Reddy VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.l6of 2019 APHC010012152019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.No.ie of 2019 Between: Niaco Ltd ...APPELLANT AND P Gangamma and Others Counsel for the Appellant: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2019 HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.No.16of 2019 JUDGMENT: The New India Insurance Company Limited, filed the present appeal aggrieved by the award dated 09.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.eOO of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, partly allowing the claim petition by granting compensation of Rs. 19,11,250/- as against the claim of Rs. 19,65,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of till the date of realization. payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally for the death of the deceased Pollakayala Rathaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 22.04.2016. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.19,65,000/- for the death of Pollakayala Rathaiah, (hereinafter referred as deceased) in a motor accident occurred on 22.04.2016. On the date of the 3 VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2019 incident, the deceased Rathaiah along with Mastri Venkata Ramaiah were proceeding to Sreenivasapuram of Khajipeta Mandal to attend Beldari work, followed by two more persons, viz., Tirupathaiah and Sudhakar on a motorcycle to attend the above said work. Mastri Venkataramaiah was riding motorcycle and Rathaiah occupied pillion seat and when they reached near Buddyapalli village, one of the motorcycle tyre was punctured and they stopped motorcycle on the roadside, both got down from the motorcycle and were looking after the tyre, in the meantime, the respondent’s lorry bearing No.RJ-20-GA-0909 being driven by the 3'^ respondent-driver, came behind from Kadapa side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed againstthe said Rathaiah, Venkataramaiah and also the motorcycle because of which both Rathaiah and Venkataramaiah sustained injuries and the motorcycle was also damaged. Tirupathaiah and Sudhakar, who witnessed the said incident, stopped the lorry. Both the injured persons were shifted to RIMS, where the doctor. as per the wound certificate and discharge summary, noticed fracture of both bones of right leg grade I and II for which the deceased Rathaiah underwent surgical correction of long bone fracture under NTR Vydya Arogya Sree in Bharathi Hospital, 4 VSJ MACMA.No.16 of 2019 Kadapa and was discharged on 26.04.2016 and the deceased died on 19.11.2016. Acase in Crime No.50 of 2016 under Section 337 IPC was registered by the Khajipet Police Station. The deceased was aged about 45 years and used to earn Rs.600/- per day through Beladari cooli work and was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month, which he was contributing to his family at the time of accident. On account of death of the deceased, the petitioners have lost their only source of bread winner. Hence, the claim petition. nd 3. While the respondents 1 and 3 remained ex parte, the 2 respondent filed the written statement denying and disputing the manner of accident, the holding of valid and effective driving licence by the 3'^'^ respondent driver, holding of valid permit, RC St and the fitness certificate with the offending lorry of the 1 respondent, the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The 2"^^ respondent opposed the claim made by the claimants as excessive and exorbitant. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether the deceased Pollakayala Rathaiah died on 19.01.2016 due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle 5 VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2019 accident occurred on 22.04.2016, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.RJ-20-GA-0909? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A. 13 were marked. On the other hand, no oral and documentary evidence were adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW.1 to 4 coupled with documentary evidence of Exs.A.3-charge sheet, came to the 6. conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, resulting in the death of the deceased and that since the offending lorry is involved in the accident, the 1®* respondent being the owner of the lorry, the 2 respondent being the insurer of the lorry and the 3'^^ respondent being the driver of the lorry, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Further, in the absence of nd substantive evidence in proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day at Rs.9,000/- per month and considering the the deceased as vs, J MACMA.No.16 of 2019 per Ex.A. 13-Death Certificate, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 48 years and by applying the multiplier of 13 the judgment of Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298), calculated the compensation at Rs.14,04,000/- and after deducting 1/4**^ of the amount towards as per personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive, the Tribunal held that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation at Rs.10.53,000/-. In addition to the said amount, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, the Tribunal also calculated Rs.2,63,250/- towards 25% on the compensation of Rs. 10,53,000/-. Apart from the said amounts, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the four Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection an amount of petitioners, totalling to apart from awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life. The Tribunal further awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the litigation. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.19,11,250/- with interest at 6% p.a. against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said award of an amount of 7 VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2019 compensation, the present appeal came to be filed by the Insurance Company. Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned standing counsel 7. for the appellant-insurance company and Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Learned standing counsel for the appellant would submit 8. that the Tribunal grossly erred in granting the compensation on high side without assigning any reasons and without having any substantive material. The Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal also erred in determining the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and also grossly erred in awarding 25% of the compensation towards future prospectus of the deceased. In view of the contentions raised by the parties and 9. considering the submissions of the learned counsel, the following point that falls for for consideration: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal suffers from serious infirmity, if so, to what amount, the claimants are entitled? VS,J MACMA.No.ie of 2019 10. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident that occurred on the fateful day and the manner in which the accident occurred and the findings given by the Tribunal to that effect became final in the absence of contrary material and needs no interference. 11. The only contention by the appellant-insurance company is that the Tribunal grossly erred in calculating the just compensation under various heads without assigning any reasons and the award of just compensation is purely on surmises and conjectures without any basis. 11. On perusal of the impugned award, this court found that iin spite of claiming that the deceased, who was aged about 45 years, used to earn Rs.600/- per day through Beladari cooli work and was getting Rs. 18,000/- per month, which was contributed to his family, the claimants did not place any record in proof of the same, thereby, in the absence of specific proof, the Tribunal, considering the avocation of the deceased as cooli, took the income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day, which comes to Rs.9,000/- per month and considering the age of the deceased as 48 years as per the recitals in Ex.A. 13-Death Certificate, and by applying multiplier 13 applicable to the age^fJJ^ie deceased, the 9 VS, J MACMA.No.16 of 2019 Tribunal assessed the 12 X 13 = dependents the amount towards compensation at Rs. 14,04,000/- (9,000 X 14,04,000/-), and out of the said amount, since the after deducting 1/4*^ of deceased, assessment of reasonable in the absence of contrary evidence. are 4 in number, the Tribunai personal expenses of the assessed the amount at Rs. 10,53 000/- and the such amount, in the opinion of this and needs no interference i court, is just and 12. Coming to the the head of loss quantum of compensation of estate, loss of awarded under consortium and funeral expenses, the award of funeral expenses and loss of consortium by the Tribunal is i laid down by the Hon’ble amounts Rs. 15,000/- each towards of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss IS in accordance with the standards Supreme Court in Waf/ona/ /nsurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others' and award of such amounts became final and needs no interference. 13. In so far as the the head of loss of future 25% (Rs.2,63,250/-) i the deceased earnings, had he been alive, ' (2017) 16 see 680 quantum of compensation awarded under prospects of the deceased at the rate of IS concerned, the Tribunal, would get definite chances anticipating that of increase in his assessed the future prospects at 10 VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2019 Rs.2,63,250/-, being 25% on the compensation of Rs. 10,53,000/-. and the assessment of such compensation under the head of future prospects cannot be found fault with, since it is awarded as per the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (stated supra). Hence, the award of amount of Rs.2,63,250/- towards future prospects is just and reasonable and needs no interference. 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection at Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the petitioners (Rs.1.00,000/- X 4 = Rs.4,00,000/-), is concerned, on perusal of the award, this court found that in spite of awarding amounts under conventional heads such as Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses: and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal grossly erred in granting compensation under the head of loss of love and affection at Rs.4,00,000/- to ail the four claimants and while awarding the said amount, the Tribunal did not assign any reasons, except saying that the claimants are entitled to the said amount in addition to the award of compensation, by quoting relevant precedents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the 11 VS,J MACMA.No.ie of 2019 learned standing counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court, time and again, and the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (stated supra), this court is of the view that awarding of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the petitioners) is erroneous and is not in accordance with law as any quantification of amount must have a reasonable foundation and basis, but the Tribunal did not assign reasons while granting the amount under the head of loss of love and affection. On perusal of the award, this court found that the Tribunal already granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1®* appellant, who is wife of the deceased. Keeping in view the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, it shall sub-serve the cause of justice, if the remaining appellants are granted some amount under the loss of love and affection. Therefore, except the 1®* appellant, the remaining appellants, who are daughters of the deceased Rathaiah, are also entitled to be granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- each, which comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- ( Rs.40,000/- X 3 - Rs.1,20,000/-) under the head of loss of love and affection. In that view of the matter, award of amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under 12 VS, J MACMA.No.16 of 2019 the head of loss of love and affection needs to be modified to the extent of reducing at Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 3 = Rs.1,20,000/-) to the appellants 2 to 4, who are daughters of the deceased Rathaiah. 15. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of expectancy, this court found that the Tribunal also grossly erred in granting such amount, and it did not assign any reason nor even relied on any record for such conclusion. In the absence of specific proof of evidence and in the light of grant of future prospects at Rs.2,63,250/-, again awarding an amount at Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of expectancy becomes superfluous and is not in accordance with law, and hence, the amount needs to be deducted from the total compensation. 16. Further, in so far as the award of amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the litigation is concerned, the Tribunal though granted an amount of Rs.22,704/- towards costs of the petition, has erroneously granted further amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation. Hence, the award of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the litigation also needs to be deducted from the total compensation. 13 VS,J MACMA.No.16 of 2019 For the sake of convenience and for easy understanding of 17. the amounts now reduced under different heads, to which amounts the claimants are now entitled, are as follows; Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amounts now awarded by this court after making reductions Head of the claim S.No. Rs. 10,53,000/- Rs. 10,53,000/- Loss of Dependency Loss of Estate 1. Rs. 15,000/- 15,000/- 2. Rs. 15,000/- 15,000/- Loss of Funeral expenses 3. Rs. 40,000/- 40,000/- Loss of Consortium 4. Rs. 2,63,250/- 2,63,250/- Loss of future prospects Loss of expectancy Loss of love and affection 5. 1,00,000/- 6. Rs. 1,20,000/- 4,00,000/- 7. 25,000/- Costs of the litigation 8. Rs.15,06,250/- Rs.19,11,250/- Total Amount of compensation now awarded as follows: : Rs.19,11,250/- : Rs. 4,05,000/- Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amount of compensation now deducted : Rs.15,06,250/- Amount of compensation now awarded 18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs.19,11,250/- to Rs.15,06,250/-, as indicated above, awarded by the order dated 09.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.600 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same 14 VS,J MACMA.No.ie of 2019 manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The rest of the directions given in respect of deposit of the compensation remained unaltered and affirmed as it is. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS assistant registrar ^^FFICER //TRUE COPY// SECTl To, Principal District Judge, Kadapa 1 The Motor Accidents Tribunal cuiTi YSR Kadapa District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. B ParameseVKara Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri. D Kodandararhi Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. The section Officer. VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies Stu RAM •: ' HIGH COURT DATED: 04/04/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.16 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA IN WITHOUT COSTS PART