IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A.No. 1847 OF 2011 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Order and decree made in M.V.O.P.No.33 of 2009 dated 15.03.2010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Disfrict Judge, Guntur. Between: 1. Nakka Adam, S/o Kanakaratnam, Christian, aged 48 years, 2. Nakka Saramma, W/o Adam, Christian, aged 40 years. Housewife 3. Nakka Vinay Kumar, S/o Adam, Christian, aged 24 years, Cultivation All are R/o Khajipalem Village, Pittala Vanipalem Mandal, Bapatia JCJC, Guntur District. io C’, o ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 1. Shribhushanam Lakshmi Prasanna, S/o Kuppu Swamy, Aged 41 years, Business R/o H.No. 59, Kalyani Gardens, Sainik Puri, Secunderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Courts, (Owner of Qualis No. AP 09 X 9053) 2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory II Block, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16, Hyderabad City Civil Courts (Policy No. OG-08-1801-1812-00001432) (Valid from 13-2-2008 to 12-2-2009) 3. Gouda Raj Goud, S/o Penta Goud, Hindu, aged 52 years. Agriculturist R/o Narsingi Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District, Medak JCJC (Owner of Tractor No. ASP 01J 1703) ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: SRI RAVI KIRAN ANUGULA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N. NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010296202011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the twenty first day of April two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1847 of 2011 Between; Nakka Adam, Guntur Dist. and two others ...Appellants and Shribhushanam Lakshmi Prasanna and two others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants: I.Ravi Kiran Anugula Counsel for the respondents: I.Nagumantri Nageswara Rao 3. A Ramakrishna Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This petition is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and award dated 15-03-2010 in M.V.O.P.No.33 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, awarding compensation of Rs.4,17,944/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition i.e. 23.10.2008, till the date of deposit or realization whichever is earlier, wjth further direction that 75% of it shall be payable MACMA.No.1847 of 2011 by the respondents no.1 and 2 and the rest of 25% shall be payable by the respondent No.3. 2. The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows; On 07.06.2008 at about 11.00 p.m., Nakka Vijay Kumar (the deceased), along with his staff members went to Reddypet, Annavaram Mandal, East Godavari District in a quails vehicle bearing No.AP 09 X 9063 to conduct soil test for erection of cell phone tower, while returning to Hyderabad, in the mid night, when the quails? vehicle reached Petrol Bunk, Vadiyaram village on N.H.5, the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed tractor near bearing No.AP 01 J 1703. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries to his head and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.117 of 2008 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC was registered against the drivers of the quails vehicle and the tractor. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the quails vehicle and the respondent No.2 is its insurer. The respondent No.3 is the owner of the tractor. 3. The deceased was aged about 25 years at that time. He was working as site engineer in Kanav Fabcon (P) Limited, Secunderabad. He was earning Rs.6482.47ps per month. The petitioner No.1 is the father, the petitioner No.2 is the mother and the petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased. As they lost their beloved seeking compensation was filed. 4. The respondent No.1 filed written statement denying allegations of rash and negligence of the driver of the quails vehicle further denied the age, income, contribution of the income to the family members etc. This respondent further pleaded that the vehicle one, the petition the and was 3 MACMA.No.1847 of 2011 insured with the respondent No.2 and if at all any compensation is to be paid, it should be paid by the respondent No.2 only. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the material allegations of rash and negligence and also, age, income etc.. Further, it is pleaded that the ‘accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor which was parked on the road without signals and also that the quails vehicle was not insured with this respondent. In addition thereto, it was pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving licence and there was no fitness certificate to the vehicle to ply on the road and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation due to violation of terms and conditions of policy. 5. 6. The respondent No.3 filed a separate written statement denying the material allegations and further contended that there negligence of the driver of the tractor and that he stopped the vehicle on the left side of the rogd taking all the precautions and so the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the quails vehicle alone and therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. was no On behalf of the claimants, the petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and N.B.Subrahmanyeswara Rao from the office of the deceased where he was working was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked through P.W.1 and Exs.X.1 to X.5 were marked through P.W.2. Ex.A.1 C.C. of F.I.R. in Cr.No.117 of 2008, Ex.A.2 C.C. of observation report with rough sketch, Ex.A.3 C.C. of M.V.I. report, Ex.A.4 C.C. of Inquest Report, Ex.A.5 C.C. of Postmortem Report, Ex.A.6 C.C. of Charge sheet, Ex.A.7 Salary certificate, Ex.A.8 10*^ Class marks list of 7. 4 MACMA.No.1847 of 2011 the deceased, Ex.X.1 Authorisation letter, Ex.X.2 Copy of appointment letter, Ex.X.3 Copy of the statutory return, Ex.X.4 Copy of attendance register and Ex.X.5 Pension sanction copy of order of R.2. 8. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 G.Chandra Sekhar, R.W.2 M.K.Hajiruddin and R.W.3 Immadi Srinu were examined and attested copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B.1. After evaluating the records, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving. Since there is evidence that the driver of the tractor took necessary precautions to switch on the signal lights while keeping the vehicle parking on the road side and that the driver of the quails vehicle was also negligent in not noticing the parked vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the liability @ 75% on the driver of the quails vehicle and 25% on the driver of the vehicle of tractor to the accident. 9. no 10. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6482.47ps. per month as per Ex.A.7, however reduced it to 50% his contribution to the family as he died bachelor. Out of Rs.3241/-, Rs.783/- which is paid by way of pension by Employees State Insurance to the petitioners was deducted. Thus, the contribution of the deceased to the family members was assessed at Rs.2458/- per month. Since the deceased died as a bachelor placing reliance on the decision of this High Court in P.V.Subba Rao and another Vs Sunkari Varahalamma and another^ , the Tribunal considered the age of the mother to apply relevant multiplier and thus the multiplier ‘14’ is taken and calculated the amount of loss of dependency at Rs.4,12,944/- In addition thereto, Rs.5,000/- was granted towards funeral and as 11. (2005) 5 ALD 175 MACMA. No. 1847 of 2011 transportation expenses and in all, the Tribunal, thus, awarded compensation of Rs.4,17,944/- and apportioned the liability aforesaid. as 12. Having aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and apportionment of the liability, this appeal was preferred. There was no representation for the respondent No.2 when the matter was taken up on 01.04.2025 for hearing. Though notices served on the respondents no.1 and 2, no appearance was made. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erroneously deducted pension amount out of the contribution of the deceased to his family and that the multiplier has to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased but not with the age of the youngest parent and further that the driver of the quails van is liable for causing the accident and thus the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on low side and the total liability shall be fixed against respondents no.1 and 2 only. He further contended that the Tribunal had not added future prospects to the income of the deceased to assess the loss of dependency. Insofar as the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles concerned, the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and came to just conclusion and therefore, it does not require any interference. Now, it is settled law that, in case of a death of a bachelor, the Tribunal has to take the age of the deceased, but not the age of the parent, to choose a multiplier. As such, since the petitioner was aged 25 years at the time of his death, the relevant multiplier as per the 13. were 14. 15. are 16. MACMA.No.1847 of 2011 \ decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another^ is ‘18’. 17. The Tribunal was correct in holding that the contribution of the deceased to the family is 50% as he died bachelor. Further the quantum is concerned, the deduction not justified. Further, the Tribunal has to the income of the deceased, but the 40% of Rs.6,482/- shall be added to the i , so far as of the amount of pension is to add future prospects @ 40% same was not done. Thereby, income of the deceased before contribution to the family income, the total would be Rs.6482+2593 = reducing it by 50% to calculate his adding 40% of his actual i After 9,074/-. Out of such amount, 50% shall be taken towards his contribution to the family = Rs.4537/-. Thus, the total Rs.9,80,000/- (4537 X 12 amount comes to X 18 = 9,79,992/- (rounded to Rs.9,80,000/-). 18. The claimants are further entitled to reasonable amount of compensation towards loss of estate funeral expenses. An transportation charges and amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses IS on very low side, granted towards funeral Therefore, an amount of Rs.20 000/- can be Rs.20,000/- can be granted above, the petitioners no.1 and expenses. towards loss of estate. Apart from the 2, being parents are entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- each for loss of filial consortium, a total of Rs.40,000/-. No.3 is also entitled to Likewise, the petitioner compensation for loss of love and affection of his brother, he can be granted compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, in total the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,70,000/-. 75% is payable by the respondents Out of the said amount. no.1 and 2 with joint and several liability and respondent No.3 is liable to pay 25%. "(2009) 6 see 121 7 MACMA.No. 1847 of 2011 . 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellants / claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee on the amount of Rs.70,000/-, before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475 (2) of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this appeal, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SEC N OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunai-cum-District Judge Guntur (with records) 2. One CC to Sri Ravi Kiran Anugula, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N. Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of A.P. 5. Three CD Copies. at Amaravati. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:21/04/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1847 of 2011 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI^^^^^^ MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A.NO. 1847 OF 2011 Between: Nakka Adam, S/o Kanakaratnam, Christian, aged 48 years, Nakka Saramma, W/o Adam, Christian, aged 40 years. Housewife Nakka Vinay Kumar, S/o Adam, Christian, aged 24 years. Cultivation All are R/o Khajipalem Village, Pittala Vanipalem Mandal, Bapatia JCJC, Guntur District. 1. 2. 3. ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND Shribhushanam Lakshmi Prasanna, S/o Kuppu Swamy, Aged 41 years. Business R/o H.No. 59, Kalyani Gardens, Sainik Puri, Secunderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Courts, (Owner of Qualis No. AP 09 X 9053) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory II Block, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16, Hyderabad City Civil Courts (Policy No. OG-08-1801-1812-00001432) (Valid from 13-2-2008 to 12-2-2009) Gouda Raj Goud, S/o Penta Goud, Hindu, aged 52 years. Agriculturist R/o Narsingi Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District, Medak JCJC (Owner of Tractor No. ASP 01J 1703) 1. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.33 of 2009 dated 15.03.2010 on the file of the Court of made the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur. 'A.. " This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of .appealf the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and pdp^rs in the Suit and the material upon hearing the arguments of Sri Anugula Ravi Kiran, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri N.Nageswara Rao for the Respondent No.2. Advocate The Court doth order and decree as follows:- 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Allowed. 2. That the claimants are entitled to Rs. 10,70,000/-in total. 3. That out of the said amount, 75% is payable by the respondents No.1 and 2 with Joint and Several liability and Respondent No.3 is liable to pay 25%. 4. That the Appellants/Claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee on the amount of Rs.70,000/- before the Tribunal within one month from the dated of receipt of certified copy of Judgment. 5. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEcfi^Tc OFFICER To. 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge Guntur. 2. Three CD Copies. ssb s HIGH COURT DATED:21/04/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1847 of 2011 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS