APHC010034162004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.779 of 2004 Between: 1. Ponnada Satyanarayana, S/o late Chinnavodu, Hindu, R/o D.No.58-12- 50, New Pydamma Lane, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-27. 2. P.V.Lakshmi, W/o P.Satyanarayana, Hindu, R/o D.No.58-12-50, New Pydamma Lane, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-27. 3. P.Naveen Babu, S/o P.Satyanarayana, Hindu, R/o D.No.58-12-50, New Pydamma Lane, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-27. 4. P.Sowjanya, D/o P.Satyanarayana, Hindu, R/o D.No.58-12-50, New Pydamma Lane, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-27. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Nandavarapu Ramana, S/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, Driver of Lorry No.AP 31T 8789, R/o Papayyarajupalem, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 2. Sri K Ramu, S/o Krishnamma, Hindu, Owner of lorry bearing No.AP 31T 8789, R/o Dr. No.9-286, Main Road Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. 4. Chandaka Ramana, S/o Ramana, Hindu, Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 31 T 7074, R/o Gollapeta, Puspatrirega, Vizianagaram District. 5. M/s Gopala Krishna Transport Manager, Rep. by its Manager, Sri D V Suryanarayana, Owner of lorry bearing No. AT 31 T 7074, R/o Flat Mukundasuva Aparmtents, 3'^ lane, Dwarakanagar, yjpisakhapatnam. (R-5 restored vide Court Order dated 14.08.2018 in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2018) 6. United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the order dated 17.12.2003 in M.O.P.No.1478 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Gopala Krishna, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 & 6 and none appeared for Respondent Nos.1,2, 4 & 5. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby allowed with proportionate costs throughout; 2. That the appellants be and are hereby entitled to the amount of Rs.9,66,200/-, subject to payment of Court fee on the differential amount of Rs.2,46,200/-. 3. That the appellants be and are hereby directed to pay the differential court fee within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, within one (1) month, the respondents be and are hereby directed to pay the amount of compensation to the appellants. 4. That the Appellants be and are hereby entitled an amount of Rs.11,209/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Nine Only) towards Proportionate throughout costs to be paid by the Respondents. •>1* MEMORANDUM OF COSTS C.M.A No.779 of 2004 Appellants (Rs.11,209/-) costs Ps. Rs. 00 05 Stamps for Vakalatnama 00 10 Stamps used for the Memo 00 01 Stamps for Judgment of the Trial Court Stamps for decree of Trial Court Value of Copy Stamp paper used for enclosures (13 pages*2) 00 02 00 26 (not certified) Advocate’s fee on Rupees 00 150 Batta and Postage (6*25) Translation and Printing charge 00 194 Total Proportionate Costs = Succession Amount * Costs/Value of the Appeal 2,46,200X 6560 / 7,20,000 = 2243/- =2243+194 = 2437/- = Rs. 2,437-00 Costs at High Court = Rs. 8,772-00 Costs at Trial Court Rs.11,209-00 TOTAL (Appellants are entitled an amount of Rs. 11,209/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Nine Only) towards Proportionate throughout costs to be paid by the Respondents.) SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR 8^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Two CD Copies 2. TK (gsg) r HIGH COURT I DATED:12/09/2025 i! t I DECREE i CMA No.779 of 2004 ) f- ALLOWING THE CMA i APHC010034162004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.779 of 2004 Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the order dated 17.12.2003 in M.O.P.No.1478 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: 1. Ponnada Satyanarayana, S/o late Chinnavodu, Hindu, R/o D.No.58-12- 50, New Pydamma Lane, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-27. P.V.Lakshmi, W/o P.Satyanarayana, Hindu, R/o D.No.58-12-50, New Pydamma Lane, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-27. P.Naveen Babu, S/o P.Satyanarayana, Hindu, R/o D.No.58-12-50, New Pydamma Lane, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-27. P.Sowjanya, D/o P.Satyanarayana, Hindu, R/o D.No.58-12-50, New Pydamma Lane, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-27. 2. 3. 4. ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Nandavarapu Ramana, S/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, Driver of Lorry No.AP 31T 8789, R/o Papayyarajupalem, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Sri K Ramu, S/o Krishnamma, Hindu, Owner of lorry bearing No.AP 31T 8789, R/o Dr. No.9-286, Main Road, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. 2. Limited, Rep. by its Divisional ;: >Jhd United India Insurance Company "^Manager, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. '4. Chandaka Ramana, S/o Ramana Hindu, Driver of lorry bearing No.AP R/o Gollapeta, Puspatrirega, Vizianagaram District. Rep. by its Manager, Sri D V r 31 T 7074 5. M/s Gopala Krishna Transport Manager, Suryanarayana, Owner Mukundasuva Aparmtents, 3 of lorry bearing No. AT 31 T 7074, R/o Flat Dwarakanagar, rd lane No.6 Visakhapatnam. dismissed for default vide court order dated 08.02.2016) Order dated 14.08.2018 in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of (R5 {R-5 restored vide Court 2018) 6. United India Insurance Company Manager, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. Limited, Rep. by its Divisional ...Respondents/ Respondents ; Sri P Gopala Krishna : Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6: None Appeared The Court made the following; APHC010034162004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the twelfth day of September, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.779 of 2004 Between: Ponnada Satyanarayana and others and ...Appellants ...Respondents Nandavarapu Ramana and others Counsel for the appellants: Sri P. Gopala Krishna Counsel for the respondents: 1. Srinivasa Rao. Vutia The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.M.A.No.779 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dated 17.12.2003, in 1988 against the award and decree M.O.P.No.1478 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Additional District Judge, Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Visakhapatnam. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows:- On 27.04.2001, the deceased who is the son of the claimants No.1 and 2 and brother of the claimants No.3 and 4, along with his friend, Sri V.V. Ramana Murthy, was proceeding towards his college on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 A 9638 to Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam. On his way, a lorry bearing No. AP 31 T 8789 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road. At the same time, another lorry bearing No. 3. AP 31 T 7074 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and ran over the deceased. The deceased died on The police of III Town (Law and Order) Police station the spot, registered a case in Cr.No.233 of 2001 against the drivers of both the The State The deceased was a meritorious student. Uttama Vidyardhi’ merit scholarship and sanctioned Rs.750/- to the deceased. In the Intermediate examinations, he secured 786 marks out of 1000 and secured 3'^'^ rank in Alfa Junior lorries. Government awarded College. He secured 176*^ rank in Bachelor of Computer Application and passed the course in first class. The deceased was pursuing B.E.^ 3 BSB, J C.IVl.A.No.779of 2004 (Civil) in Gitam College, Visakhapatnam, as on the date of accident. The 1®' respondent is the driver, the 2'^^ respondent is the owner and the 3'^'^ respondent is the insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 31T 8789. The respondents No.4, 5 and 6 are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 31 T 7074. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- under the following heads: For Special Damaqes:- (a) Transport to Hospital (b) Others & Funeral Expenses For General Damaqes:- (a) Compensation for pain and suffering (b) Compensation for continuing Permanent disability, if any, (c) Compensation for loss of earning power Rs.10,000-00 Rs.10,000-00 Rs.2,00,000-00 Rs.3,00,000-00 Rs.2,00,000-00 Rs.7.20.000-00 Total The respondents No.1,2 and 4 remained ex parte. The respondents No.3 and 6^ being the same company, filed counter opposing the claim and further putting the claimants to prove age, educational qualification etc., of the deceased. It is further contended that the claimants have to prove that the drivers of both the lorries had valid driving license and the owners had necessary permits etc. It is further mainly contended that the friend of the deceased who riding the motor cycle contributed to the accident and that the deceased also contributed to the accident. The claims under various heads are stated to be exorbitant and exaggerated. The insurance company prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. 5. was 4 BSB, J C.M.A.No.779of 2004 respondent adopted the counter of the insurance th 6. The 5 company. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant No.1 who is the father of the deceased was examined as PW1 and an eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW2 and Exs.AI to A9 were marked. ; True copy of F.l.R. : True copy of M.V.l’s report. ; True copy of charge-sheet. ; True copy of inquest report. ; True copy of P.M.Report. ; S.S.C. certificate. : Merit Certificate issued by M.C.High School. : Pass certificate-cum-Memorandum of marks issued by the Board of Intermediate Education. ; Study Certificate issued by Alpha Junior College. 7. EX.A1 EX.A2 EX.A3 EX.A4 EX.A5 Ex,A6 EX.A7 EX.A8 EX.A9 The respondents No.3, 5 and 6 reported no oral and documentary 8. evidence. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that the drivers of Thus, all the 9. both the lorries were responsible for the accident, made jointly and severally liable to pay respondents were compensation. This finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the insurance company or any other respondent. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate making a total of Rs.2,37,000/-. 10. 5 BSB, J C.M.A.No,779 of 2004 The Tribunal granted interest payable at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, the claimants preferred 11. this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was a meritorious student and was prosecuting B.E.(Civil), but the Tribunal fixed a notional income at a very low rate of Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of B.Ramulamma Vs. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore and another^ had taken notional income of an Engineering student at Rs. 12,000/- and in that case where the accident occurred in 1995. Whereas, the deceased in the present case died in the year 2001. Nextiy, he submitted that the Tribunal has not added any amount towards future prospects. With regard to the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal i.e., ‘13’, he submitted that the age of the mother was taken into consideration, but the age of the deceased shall be taken into consideration and ought to have applied a higher multiplier. He further submitted that the Tribunal had not granted any compensation towards funeral expenses, transportation expenses and compensation for consortium. 12. Though notices were served on the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 they have not made appearance. No report on the service of notice on the respondent No.5 has been received, though it was addressed to the Therefore, it is 13. same address as was given before the Tribunal, deemed to be served. Moreover, since the insurance company is 2009 (6) ALD 684 (D.B.) c 6 BSB, J C.M.A.No.779of 2004 P contesting the appeal and the defence of the respondent No.5 is the same as is taken by the insurance company, no prejudice is caused. The learned counsel for the insurance company representing the respondents No.3 and 6 submitted that the insurance company mainly opposed the income of the deceased stated by the learned counsel for the appellants, to take it @ 12,000/- p.a., and it could be around Rs.6,000/-. He further submitted that the future prospects of the deceased cannot be at a high rate because he was not permanently employed and therefore, appropriate rate of future prospects may be considered. He fairly submitted that he does not oppose the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 14. The appellants filed C.M.P.Nos.1936 and 1937 of 2017 to receive study certificate of the deceased as additional evidence and to exhibit the same. The said applications were dismissed by a separate order passed today. 15. 16. As the claimants have not placed any evidence as to what would be the reasonable amount of income that would fetch for an engineer with qualification of the deceased, this Court is left with no other option except to go for notional assessment. The amount of income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- is very low for a student with the caliber of the deceased in this case and it was duly proved by the claimants that the deceased was a meritorious student as can be seen from exhibits A6 to A9 and the same finding was also given by the Tribunal as well. However, the Tribunal has taken low amount and proportionate income in spite of its finding. During the year 2001, for an engineer, Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/- could be the reasonable amount of income and the higher income could be drawn only by seniors. The amount of notional 7 BSB, J C.M.A.No.779of 2004 monthly income argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is on high side. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month as a raw employee. In addition thereto, some amount shall be added towards future prospects. As it is not certain whether he would be employed permanently or on any other basis, 40% of additional income can be considered towards future prospects. Therefore, the compensation payable would come to Rs.8,400/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of such income shall be taken towards his personal expenses. Thus, the contribution to the family can be assessed at Rs.4,200/- per month. The multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased shall be adopted to calculate the amount of compensation payable. In the present case, the multiplier, i.e., ‘18’ is applicable. Therefore, the loss of contribution to the family comes to Rs.4,200/- X 12 X 18 = Rs.9,07,200/-. 17. That apart, the claimants are entitled to loss of estate which was awarded by the Tribunal for an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. In addition thereto, the parents are entitled to consortium for loss of love and affection of their son. Considering the value as on the date of the accident, each parent is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- under the same head. Since the claimants 3 & 4 are siblings of the deceased, they are entitled to Rs.2,000/- each. 18. As the Tribunal failed to award any compensation for transportation charges of the dead body and funeral charges, the claimants are entitled to Rs.20,000/- under both the heads together. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,66,200/-. « 19. i ' 8 BSB, J C.M.A.No.779 of 2004 The learned counsel for the insurance company requested to reduce the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum. Since the insurance company has not filed any cross objections, and the rate of interest is not on high side, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the interest awarded by the Tribunal. 20. As the amount of compensation payable is more than what was claimed by the appellants, they are entitled to the amount of Rs.9,66,200/-, subject to payment of Court fee on the differential amount of Rs.2,46,200/-. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with proportionate costs throughout directing the appellants to pay the differential court fee within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, within one (1) month, the respondents shall pay the amount of compensation to the appellants. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, (with records) 2. One CC to Sri P Gopala Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutia, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies TK (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED; 12/09/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE CMA No.779 of 2004 ALLOWING THE CMA