.4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A. No: 70 OF 2025 Between: 1. S. Naseem, W/o. Late S. Pyarejan @ S. Ameen, Aged about 25 years, Occ: House wife. 2. S. Jaffer, S/o. Late S. Pyarejan @ S. Ameen, Aged about 7 years, Occ: Student, Minor, 3. S. Likhath, D/o. Late S. Fyarejan @ S. Ameen, Aged about 4 years Minor, Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are being minors, represented by their natural guardian and Mother 1®* petitioner i.e., S. Naseem. All are residents of Nimmanapalli Village & Post and Mandal, Chittoor District, now residing at Prasanth Nagar, Reddigunta Post, Chittoor town & District ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. Bandia Balaraju, S/o. B. Venkatappa, Aged about Major, Owner of the Car bearing No. AP 02 TR/TY 0847 R/o. D. No. 2-604, Santhi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Anantapur District. Limited, Rep. by its Divisional 2. M/s National Insurance Company '■‘“Manager, Divisional Office, 11-169, Subhash Road, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3. Pasupuleti Ramakrishna, @ N.Krista, S/o. N. Ramudu, aged about Driver, R/o. D. No. 7-425, Geetha Nagar, 31 Years, Occ; Dharmavaram Town & Mandal, Anantapur District ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that pleased to set aside the order passed in the file of the court of the the High Court may be Mrv707P.N0. 132 of 2013, dated 07.04.2016 on Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chairman, District Judge - Cum - Chittoor, Chittoor District. hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers This appeal coming on for appeal, the Judgment and in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Advocate representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, and of Sri Sravan Kumar Munnava, Counsel for Sri Y.V.S.S.Dharneesh counsel for the Appellant (s) the Respondent No. 2; This court doth order and decree as follows: MACMA be and the same is hereby allowed in part. 1. That the 2. That the compensation is hereby enhanced from Rs.4,55,600/- to Rs. from the date of petition 7,01,500/-, with interest at 7.5 % per annum till the date of realization against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. That respondent No.2/insurer is hereby directed to deposit the months from the date of the compensation amount within two judgment before the Tribunal. 4. That on such deposit, the claimants are hereby entitled to receive the addition to the amount enhanced compensation amount equally in K Tribunal earlier and Claimant No.1/wife is with interest accrued thereon and apportioned by the permitted to withdraw the same claimants Nos. 2 & 3 are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon after attaining their majority, till then the same shall Nationalized Bank by the Tribunal. be deposited in any 5. That the rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remain intact. the aforesaid Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 6. That the terms ortionate costs of Rs. 128 to 7. That the appellants are entitled to prcr be paid by the Respondents. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS M.A.C.M.A- No. 70 of 2025 Ps. Rs. 00 5 Stamps for Vakalatnama 00 10 Stamps used for the Memo Stamps for Judgment of the Lower Court Stamps for decree of the Lower Court Value of Copy Stamp paper used for enclosures 00 1 00 2 00 35 Advocate’s fee on Rupees (as per Rules) not certified 00 75 Batta and Postage Translation and Printing charge 128 Total >• Proportionate Costs = Succession amount X costs / value of the appeal Succession amount = 2,45,900/- Value of the appeal = 2,94,400/- Proportionate Costs = 2,45,900 X 128 / 2,94,400 - Rs. 107/- (The appellants are entitled to Proportionate costs of Rs. 107 /- to be paid by the Respondents ) SD/- B.CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SECT To, 1. The District Judge - Cum - Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2. Three CD copies SRM sree HIGH COURT DATED: 28/01/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.70 of 2025 13 JUN 2025 fX PARTLY ALLOWING THE WIACMA w I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A. No: 71 OF 2025 Between: 1. S. Saheena, W/o. Late M. Suleman Khan, Aged about 39 Occ: House wife, 2. Murthuja Ali Ahamed, S/o, Late M. Suleman, Aged about 18 Occ; Student, 3. M. Dilshad, D/o. Late M. Suleman Khan, Aged about 12 years, Occ; Student, Minor, years. years. Petitioner No. 3 is being minor, represented by their natural guardian and Mother 1"* petitioner i.e., S. Saheena. All are permanent residents of near Bus Stand, Tarigonda Village & Post, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District Nagar, Reddigunta Post, Chittoor town and District. now residing at Prasanth ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. Bandia Balaraju, S/o. B. Venkatappa, Aged about Major, Owner of the Car bearing No. AP 02 TR/TY 0847 R/o. D. No. 2-604 Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Anantapur District. Santhi • * > [, r/ fv; 2. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 11-169, Subhash Road, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3. Pasupuleti Ramakrishna, @ N.Krista, S/o. N. Ramudu, aged about 31 Years, Occ; Driver, R/o. D. No. 7-425, Geetha Nagar, Dharmavaram Town & Mandal, Anantapur District ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed in M.V.O.P.NO. 133 of 2013, dated 07.04.2016 on the file of the court of the District Judge - Cum - Chittoor, Chittoor District. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Y.V.S.S.Dharneesh, Advocate representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, counsel for the Appellant (s) and of Sri Sravan Kumar Munnava, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2; This court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the MACMA be and the same is hereby allowed in part. 2. That the compensation is hereby enhanced from Rs.4,08,800/- to Rs. 6,39,100/-, with interest at 7.5 % per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. That respondent No.2/insurer is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of the judgment before the Tribunal. 4. That on such deposit, the claimants are hereby entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier and Claimant No.1 and 2 are Sri permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon and claimant No. 3 is permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon after attaining her majority, till then the same shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank by the Tribunal. That the rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remain intact. That the Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. That the appellants are entitled to proportionate costs of Rs.128 to be paid by the Respondents. . 5. 6. 7. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS M.A.C.M.A. No. 71 of 2025 Rs. Ps. Stamps for Vakalatnama 5 00 Stamps used for the Memo 10 00 Stamps for Judgment of the Lower Court 1 00 Stamps for decree of the Lower Court 2 00 Value of Copy Stamp paper used for enclosures 35 00 Advocate’s fee on Rupees (as per Rules) not certified Batta and Postage 75 00 Translation and Printing charge Total 128 Proportionate Costs = Succession amount X costs / value of the appeal * # ✓ Succession amount = 2,30,300/- r*' Value of the appeal = 2,91,200/- Proportionate Costs = 2,30,300 X 128/2,91,200 = Rs. 101/- (The appellants are entitled to Proportionate costs of Rs. 101/- to be paid by the Respondents) SD/- B.CHITTIJOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The District Judge - Cum - Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, Chittoor District. Three CD copies To, 1. 2. SRM sree li-m HIGH COURT DATED: 28/01/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.71 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A. No: 72 OF 2025 Between: 1. S.Akther jan, W/o. Late S. Makdum, Aged about 48 years, Occ House wife, 2. S.Khadar basha, S/o. Late S. Makdum, Aged about 27 Years, Occ: Student, 3. S. Chand basha, S/o. Late S. Makdum, Aged about 24 Years, Occ: Student, All are permanent resident of Indira Nagar, Madanapalle, Town and Mandal, Chittoor District, now residing at Prasanth Nagar, Reddigunta Post, Chittoor Town and district. ...Appellant/Claimant AND 1. Bandia Balaraju, S/o. B. Venkatappa, Aged about Major, Owner of the Car bearing No. AP 02 TR/TY 0847 R/o. D. No. 2-604, Santhi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal Anantapur District. 2. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 11-169, Subhash Road, Anantapur, Anantapur District. fu'y 3. Pasupuleti Ramakrishna, @ N.Krista, S/o. N. Ramudu, aged about 31 Years, Occ; Driver, R/o. D. No. 7-425, Geetha Nagar, Dharmavaram Town & Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed in M.V.O.P.NO. 131 of 2013, dated 07.04.2016 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge - Cum - Chittoor, Chittoor District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Y.V.S.S.Dharneesh, Advocate representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, counsel for the Appellant (s) and of Sri Sravan Kumar Munnava, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2; Sri This court doth order and decree as follows; 1. That the MACMA be and the same is hereby allowed in part. 2. That the compensation is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,98,400/- to Rs. 4,98,300/-, with interest at 7.5 % per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. That respondent No.2/insurer is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of the judgment before the Tribunal 4. That on such deposit, the claimants are hereby entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier and they are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon. A 4 5 That the rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remain intact. That the Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. That the appellants are entitled to proportionate costs of Rs. 132 to be paid by the Respondents. 5. X'- ■;> 6. 7. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS M.A.C.M.A. No. 72 of 2025 Ps. Rs. 00 5 Stamps for Vakalatnama 00 10 Stamps used for the Memo 00 1 Stamps for Judgment of the Lower Court 00 2 Stamps for decree of the Lower Court Value of Copy Stamp paper used for enclosures 00 35 Advocate’s fee on Rupees (as per Rules) not certified 00 75 Batta and Postage Translation and Printing charge 128 Total Proportionate Costs = Succession amount X costs / value of the appeal Succession amount = 1,99,900/- Value of the appeal = 2,01,600/- t Proportionate Costs = 1,99,900 X 128/2,01,600 = Rs. 127/- (The appellants are entitled to Proportionate costs of Rs. 127 /- to be paid by the Respondents ) SDI- B.CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAjR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. The. District Judge - Cum Tribunal, Chittoor, Chittoor District. Three CD copies Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims 2. SRM sree HIGH COURT DATED: 28/01/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.72 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A. Nos: 72. 70 and 71 OF 2025 M.A.C.M.A. No: 72 OF 2025 Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order Act. praying that passed in M.V.O.P.NO. 131 of 2013, dated 07.04.2016 on the file of the court of the District Judge - Cum - Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, Chittoor District Between: 1. S.Akther jan, W/o. Late S. Makdum, Aged about 48 years, Occ House wife, 2. S.Khadar basha, S/o. Late S. Makdum, Aged about 27 Years, Occ; Student, 3. S. Chand basha. S/o. Late S. Makdum. Aged about 24 Years, Occ: Student, All are permanent resident of Indira Nagar, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, now residing at Prasanth Nagar, Reddigunta Post, Chittoor Town and district. Town and ...Appellant/Claimant AND 1. Bandia Balaraju, S/o. B. Venkatappa, Aged about Major, Owner of the Car bearing No. AP 02 TR/TY 0847 R/o. D. No. 2-604, Santhi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal Anantapur District. 2. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 11-169, Subhash Road, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3. Pasupuleti Ramakrishna, @ N.Krista, S/o. N. Ramudu, aged about 31 Years, Occ; Driver, R/o. D. No. 7-425, Geetha Nagar, Dharmavaram Town & Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Respondents/Respondents I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 fMACMAMP. NO: 3614 OF 2016) Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed 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 19 days in filing the above MACMA before this Hon'ble court. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent 2; SRI SRAVA 'UMAR MAN NAVA M.A.C.M.A. No: 70 OF 2025 Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed in M.V.O.P.NO. 132 of 2013, dated 07.04.2016 on the file of the court of the District Judge - Cum - Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 Between: 1. S. Naseem, W/o. Late S. Pyarejan @ S. Ameen, Aged about 25 years, Occ: House wife, 2. S. Jaffer, S/o. Late S. Pyarejan @ S. Ameen, Aged about 7 years, Occ; Student, Minor, 3. S. Likhath, D/o. Late S. Pyarejan @ S. Ameen, Aged about 4 Minor, years Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are being minors, represented by their natural guardian and Mother 1®* petitioner i.e., S. Naseem. All are residents of Nimmanapalli Village & Post and Mandal, Chittoor District, now residing at Prasanth Nagar, Reddigunta Post, Chittoor town & District ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. Bandia Balaraju, S/o. B. Venkatappa, Aged about Major, Owner of the Car bearing No. AP 02 TR/TY 0847 R/o. D. No. 2-604, Santhi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Anantapur District. 2. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Anantapur District. 11-169, Subhash Road, Anantapur, 3. Pasupuleti Ramakrishna, @ N.Krista, S/o. N. Ramudu, aged about 31 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o. D. No. 7-425, Geetha Nagar, Dharmavaram Town & Mandal, Anantapur District ...Respondents/Respondents LA. NO: 1 OF 2016 (MACMAMP. NO: 3598 OF 2016) Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed p.'-aying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the M High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 19 days in filing the above MAGMA before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent 2: SRI SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA M.A.C.M.A. No: 71 OF 2025 Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed in M.V.O.P.NO. 133 of 2013, dated 07.04.2016 on the file of the court of the District Judge - Cum - Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, Chittoor District. Between: 1. S. Saheena, W/o. Late M. Suleman Khan, Aged about 39 years, Occ: House wife, 2. Murthuja Ali Ahamed, S/o. Late M. Suleman, Aged about 18 years, Occ; Student, 3. M. Dilshad, D/o. Late M. Suleman Khan, Aged about 12 years, Occ: Student, Minor, Petitioner No. 3 is being minor, represented by their natural guardian and Mother 1®' petitioner i.e., S. Saheena. All are permanent residents of near Bus Stand, Tarigonda Village & Post, Gurramkonda Mandai, Chittoor District, now residing at Prasanth Nagar, Reddigunta Post, Chittoor town and District. ...Appellants/Claimants 5 AND 1. Bandia Balaraju, S/o. B. Venkatappa, Aged about Major, Owner of the Car bearing No. AP 02 TR/TY 0847 R/o. D. No. 2-604, Santhi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and Mandat, Anantapur District. 2. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 11-169, Subhash Road, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3. Pasupuleti Ramakrishna, @ N.Krista, S/o. N. Ramudu, aged about 31 Years, Occ; Driver, R/o. D. No. 7-425, Geetha Nagar, Dharmavaram Town & Mandal, Anantapur District ...Respondents/Respondents LA. NO: 1 OF 2016 tMACMAMP. NO: 3625 OF 20161 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, is filed 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 19 days in filing the above MACMA before this Hon’ble Court. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA - Counsel for the Respondent 2; SRI SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA The Court made the following: APHC011417522016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 72. 70 & 71 OF 2025 Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.72 of 2025: S.akther Jan and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND B Balaraju Anantapur Dist And 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.70 of 2025: S Naseem and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND B Balaraju Anantapur Dist And 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Between in M.A.C.M.A. No.71 of 2025: S.Saheena and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND B Balaraju Anantapur Dist And 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA The Court made the following: 2 COMMON lUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the orders of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal’} in M.V.O.P.Nos.131, 132 and 133 of 2013 dated 07.04.2016. 2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.72 of 2025 is preferred by the claimants, who are wife and children of one S.Nayab Makdum [hereinafter called as "deceased No.l"), before the Tribunal for enh of compensation. The respondent Nos.l to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the Indigo Car bearing No.AP 02 TR/TY 0847 (hereinafter referred as "crime car"). 4. M.A.C.M.A.No.70 of 2025 is preferred by the claimants, who are wife and children of one S.Pyarejan @ S.Ameen (hereinafter called as deceased No.2"), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. 3 5. M.A.C.M.A.No.71 of 2025 is preferred by the claimants, who are wife and children of one M.Suleman Khan (hereinafter called as "deceased No.3"), before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. 6. The case of the claimants, in the petitions before the Tribunal is that: i) On 10.02.2013 at about 05.50 p.m., while the deceased Nos.l to 3 proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP 03 TA 4257, when they reached near Kantayvaripalle situated on Madanapalle-Kadiri main road, the driver of the said crime car (car bearing No.AP 02 TR/TY 0847) driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the said auto in opposite direction, resulted death of the deceased Nos.l to 3. ii) Being dependents, the claimants in all the petitions, claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively against the owner. insurer and driver of the said crime car. 4 The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement and additional written statement denying the averments in the 7. petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was due to negligent driving of the auto, but not driver of the crime car (car bearing No.AP 02 TR/TY 0847); that the petition is bad for non joinder of driver and owner of the said auto; that the driver of the crime car is not having valid driving license to drive the same and that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The respondent No.3/driver filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that he is holding valid driving license to drive the crime car; that there is no negligence j part in causing the incident and that he is not a necessary party to the proceedings, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material; 1.Whether the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing 5 No.AP 02 TR/TY 0847 or the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 03 TA 4257? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? and 4. To what relief?' 10. During enquiry, in all the petitions, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.l and 2 were examined and Exs.A.l to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents none were examined, however, Ex.B.l policy was marked. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 3>-d respondent, held that claimants in all the 11. petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,98,400/-, Rs.4,45,600/- and Rs.4,08,800/- respectively, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l to 3, for the death of the deceased Nos.l to 3 in the accident. 6 12. It is against the said orders; these appeals are preferred by the claimants in the respective petitions for enhancement of compensation. 13. Heard Sri Y.V.S.S.Dharaneesh, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer. 14. It is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal erred in awarding less compensation to the claimants, thereby, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. Per contra, counsel for the respondent Irar No.2/insurer submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record in right perspective calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal, thereby, the present appeals have no merits and liable for dismissal. 7 16. It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased Nos.l to 3 in the incident, involvement of the crime car in the incident. rash and negligent driving of the crime car in causing the incident and that no appeal was preferred by the owner and insurer against the findings of the Tribunal. Now, the only point that arises for determination in all 17. the appeals is whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is just compensation? 18. POINT in M.A.C.M.A.fSrl No.27680 of 2016: It is not in dispute that by the time of incident the deceased was aged about 57 years. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased being auto driver used to earn Rs.10,000/- t'o Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in the absence of substantial proof regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal taken monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/-, which is nothing but contrary to the eye of law. now a days even an unskilled labored can earn more than Rs.150/- per day. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased 8 is determined at Rs.4,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.48,000/- per annum. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the 19. Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi^, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, held at Paragraph No.39 as follows: 39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly discernible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh, and Munna Lai Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The ifrst one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, Sarla Verma lays down:- "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandrad, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this [2003] 3 SLR [R] 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (l/3rd) where 12017(6) ALT 60 (SC) 9 the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth [l/4th] where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-iffth [l/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six." 20. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred to supra), in case the deceased was self-employed, an addition of 10% should be made, where the deceased was between the age of (emphasis supplied) 50 to 60 years 21. In the present case as per the above said decision, 10% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 57 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 10% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.52,800/-(Rs.48,000/- + Rs.4,800/-). In the case on hand, when there are three claimants 22. before the Tribunal depending on the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should 10 be from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.35,200/-. Regarding just compensation, in a decision of Hon’ble 23. Supreme Court between Sandeep Khanuja vs AtuI Dande & Anr2, at Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 held as follows : it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident 11 While applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are taken into consideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act relating to death of the victim, multiplier method is applied after taking into consideration the loss of income to the family of the deceased that resulted due to the said demise. Thus, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having 12 2 2017(3) see 315 11 regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, as the case may be there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B. Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168. Motor Vehicles Act. 1988] envisaged payment of 'just' compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country. (emphasis supplied] The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 57 years is 9. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.3,16,800/- (Rs.35,200/- x 9], 24. 25. CONVENTIONAL HEADS:- On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case /referred to supra/. Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nana Ram @ 12 Chuhru Ram and Ors.^, Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others'^, United India Insurance Co. Ltd V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and ors.^ and Rojalini Nayak and others v. Ajit Sahoo and others^^, this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.1,45,200/- towards loss of spousal and parental consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-, respectively awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). as was 26. A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at the compensation is set out infra: S.No. Heads Calculation The annual income of the deceased. 1 Rs.48,000/- per annum 3(2018) 18 see 130 '•(2022) see Online Se 1683 5 (2022) see Online SO 1683 17(2021) 11 see 780 13 10% of above(l) to be added prospects 2 (Rs.48,000/- + Rs.4,800/0 future as Rs.52,800/- 1/3'^d to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. 3 Rs.35,200/-. Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 9. 4 (Rs.35,200/- 9) X Rs.3,16,800/- 5 Spousal and Parental consortium Rs.1,45,200/- [wife and two children} 6 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.4,98,300/- 27. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,98,400/- to Rs.4,98,300/-. It is 14 needless to say that the compensation claimed by the claimants on the remaining heads are not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 28. POINT in M.A.C.M.A.fSrI No.27686 of 2016: It is not in dispute that by the time of incident the deceased was aged about 48 years. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased being auto driver used to earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in the absence of substantial proof regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal taken monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/-, which is nothing but contrary to the eye of law, now a days even an unskilled labored can earn more than Ks.lSO/- per day. Thereby, the actual income of the aeceased is determined at Rs.4,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.48,000/- per annum. 29. As per the Pranay Sethi case (referred supra), in case the deceased was self-employed, an addition of 25% should be made, where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 (emphasis supplied) years 15 30. In the present case, as per the above said decision, 25% of actual income has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged about 48 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.60,000/-(Rs.48,000/- -h Rs.12,000/-]. 31. In the case on hand, when there are three claimants before the Tribunal depending on the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be l/3‘-d from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.40,000/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 48 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.5,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 13). 32. 33. CONVENTIONAL HEADS: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case, Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram 16 case, Smt.Anjali case, Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur case and Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra), this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.1,45,200/- towards loss of spousal and parental consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-, respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at 34. the compensation is set out infra: Calculation Hpads S.No. The annual income of the deceased. Rs.48,000/- per annum 1 25% of above(l) to be added prospects (Rs.48,000/- + Rs.12,000/-) 2 future as Rs.60,000/- 17 l/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. 3 Rs.40,000/-. Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13. 4 (Rs.40,000/- 13) X Rs.5,20,000/- 5 Spousal and Parental consortium Rs.1,45,200/- (wife and two children) 6 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6-t7) Rs.7,01,500/- 35. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,55,600/- to Rs.7,01,500/-. It is needless to say that the compensation claimed by the claimants on the remaining heads are not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 18 POINT in M.A.C.M.A.fSrl No.27690 of 2016: It is not in dispute that by the time of incident the deceased was aged about 50 years. It is the contention of the 36. claimants that the deceased being auto driver used to earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in the absence of substantial proof regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal taken monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/-, which is nothing but contrary to the eye of law. now a days even an unskilled labored can earn more than Rs.150/- per day. Thereby, the actual income of the deceased is determined at Rs.4,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.48,000/- per annum. 37. As per tne Franay Sethi case (referred to supra), in case the deceased was self-employed, an addition of 10% should be made, where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years (emphasis supplied) In the present case as per the above said decision, 10% of actual income has to be added to the income of the 38. deceased towards future prospects as the deceased is aged 19 about 50 years by the date of incident, which is not in dispute. After adding 10% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects her income is determined at Rs.52,800/-(Rs.48,000/- + Rs.4,800/-). 39. In the case on hand, when there are three claimants before the Tribunal depending on the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be from the income of the deceased. Then the quantum is determined as Rs.35,200/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 50 years is 13. The total loss of dependency is determined at Rs.4,57,600/- (Rs.35,200/- x 13). 40. 41. CONVENTIONAL HEADS:- On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case, Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram case, Smt.Anjali case, Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur case and Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra), this Court can award the enhanced amounts under the 20 conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.l,45,2O0/- towards loss of spousal and parental consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-, respectively as was awarded in Rojalini Nayak case (referred to supra). A brief exposition of the calculation made to arrive at 42. the compensation is set out infra: Heads S.No. Calculation The annual income of the deceased. Rs.48,000/- per annum 1 10% of above(l) to be added prospects 2 (Rs.48,000/- + Rs.4,800/-) ;uLure Rs.52,800/- l/3rd to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased. 3 Rs.35,200/-. Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 13. 4 (Rs.35,200/- 13) X Rs.4,57,600/- 21 5 Rs.1,45,200/- Spousal and Parental consortium (wife and two children) 6 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4+5+6+7) Rs.6,39,100/- Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the 43. Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,08,800/- to Rs.6,39,100/-. It is needless to say that the compensation claimed by the claimants on the remaining heads are not entitled by the claimants. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 44. In view of the above discussion, the orders passed by the Tribunal warrants interference only regarding quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants. As such, the appeals 22 preferred by the appellants/claimants are liable to be considered partly. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.(Sr) No.27680 of 2016 is 45. allowed in part, with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,98,400/- to Rs.4,98,300/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.l to 3. The respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier and they are permitted to witliuidw same with interest accrued cue thereon. The rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. The M.A.C.M.A.(Sr) No.27686 of 2016 is allowed in part. 46. with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from 23 Rs.4,55,600/- to Rs.7,01,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.l to 3. The respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit. the claimants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally in addition to the amount apportioned by the Tribunal earlier, claimant No.1/wife is permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon after attaining their majority, till then the same shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank by the Tribunal. The rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. The M.A.C.M.A.[Sr) No.27690 of 2016 is allowed in part, 47. with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,08,800/- Rs.6,39,100/- with interest at 7.5% per to annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization 24 aj^ainst respondent Nos.l to 3. The respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation amount equally in addition to the amount apportioned -by the Tribunal earlier, claimant Nos.l and 2 are permitted to withdraw the same with interest accrued thereon and claimant No.3 is permitted to withdraw the sam.e with interest accrued thereon after attaining her majority, till then the same shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank by the Tribunal. The rest of the conditions made in the order of the Tribunal shall remained intact. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, ir any, already paid. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC N OFFICER To, 1. The District Judge - Cum - Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies SRm sree HIGH COURT DATED: 28/01/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA. Nos. 72, 70 & 71 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMAs