APHC010178862005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Sixteenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: S. Abdul and others and Smt.C.H.Kanakadurga and Counsel for the appellant 1. O.Udaya Kumar Counsel for the respondent 1. Suri Babu Puppala 2. V. Veerabhadra Chary The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award and decree 2000 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-IV Additional District claimants. The respondents herein Tribunal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Sixteenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1116 of 2005 ...Appellants Kanakadurga and others ...Respondents ppellants: espondents: V. Veerabhadra Chary The Court made the following: This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act award and decree dated 13.04.2005 in M.V.O.P.No. on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. This appeal is filed by the respondents herein are the respondents before the [3311] Thursday, the Sixteenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five Miscellaneous Appeal No.1116 of 2005 ppellants espondents Act,1988 O.P.No.432 of on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- Judge, Tirupathi. This appeal is filed by the the respondents before the 2 BSB,J MACMA.No.1116 of 2005 02. The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows : Smt.Mahabooni and others boarded a van bearing No.ATC 2399 at Renugunta to go to Tirupathi. At about 11,00 a.m, when the van reached near Patel Timber depot on Renigunta-Tirupathi main road, the driver of the van tried to overtake a lorry in a rash and negligent manner. At the same time, a lorry bearing No.ABC 4790 was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, both the van and the lorry collided with each other and Mahabooni and her sister Guljar and others sustained multiple injuries. Mahabooni was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G.Hospital, Tirupathi. On the same day, she succumbed to the injuries at 8.30 p.m. On a complaint, S.H.O of Alipiri police station, Tirupathi registered a case in Cr.No.74 of 2004 under section 304A, 338 and 279 I.P.C. Smt.Mahabooni was aged about 52 years and was doing saree business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, which was contributed to her family. The husband of Mahabooni pre- deceased her. The claimants are her sons. Her daughters are married and living with their families and are not dependent on the income of the deceased. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent is its insurer. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the van and the 4th respondent is its insurer. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 03. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the averments in the claim petition and contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition. The 2nd respondent filed counter with the same averments. The 3rd respondent remained exparte. 3 BSB,J MACMA.No.1116 of 2005 04. The 4th respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition and stating that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry and prayed to dismiss the petition. 05. On behalf of claimants, younger son of the deceased was examined as PW1 and A.Venkatamuni was examined as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. No witness was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of respondents. Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R in Crime No.74 of 2000 of Alipiri police station. Ex.A2: Certified copy of inquest report in Cr.No.74 of 2000 of Alipiri police station. Ex.A3: Certified copy of post-mortem report in Cr.No.74 of 2000 of Alipiri police station. 06. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. 07. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of it, her annual contribution to her family was assessed at Rs.12,000/- . Since the deceased was found to be aged about 54 years, by applying multiplier ‘9’, the amount towards loss of dependents, estate and earnings was calculated as Rs.1,08,000/-. In addition thereto, Rs.500/- was granted towards damage of clothing and expenses of transportation, Rs.500/- was granted towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, in total Rs.1,10,000/- was awarded. Interest was granted @ 9% p.a., payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The liability was fastened against the respondents 4 BSB,J MACMA.No.1116 of 2005 Nos.1 and 2 and the respondents Nos.3 & 4 at the rate of 30%-70% respectively. 08. The learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the grounds of appeal and further stated that some more amount under other heads, like loss of love and affection and consortium etc., can be granted. On the other hand the learned counsels for the insurance companies opposed to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 09. Since there is no cross objection in so far as this award is concerned, this Court proceeds with the contentions of the appellants regarding the quantum of compensation only. The income of the deceased was fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/- as there was no proof of actual income earned by the deceased. As such, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. The Tribunal used the multiplier 9 instead of 11 which is applicable to the person aged about 54 years. Of course, as on the date of present accident, there used to be different set of multipliers adopted by different courts. Uniformity was brought by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation & another1, even in the set of multipliers shown in the schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the relevant multiplier is 11. As such the multiplier 11 can be adopted in this case. 10. The learned counsel for appellant further submitted that the claimants are entitled to compensation towards future prospects by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 5 BSB,J MACMA.No.1116 of 2005 Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2. As per this judgment, in case the deceased is self employed or on a fixed salary, future prospects @ 10% is to be considered in respect of the person aged between 50 and 60 years. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased shall be regarded as Rs.13,200/-. When it is multiplied by 11, Rs.1,45,200/- is the result. Different heads Amount Rs. Loss of earnings 1,45,200/- Damage to clothing and transport charges 500/- Funeral expenses 2500/- Pain & suffering 1000/- Loss of estate 10,000/- Filial consortium 10,000/- Total 1,69,200/- Thus, in total, the appellants are entitled to Rs.1,69,200/- towards compensation. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the sum of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.1,69,200/- with proportionate costs throughout. The rate of interest remains the same. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 16.10.2025 GRL 2 2017 INSC 1068 6 BSB,J MACMA.No.1116 of 2005 7 BSB,J MACMA.No.1116 of 2005 170 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1116/2005 Date: 16.10.2025 GRL 8 BSB,J MACMA.No.1116 of 2005