APHC010313062022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs.230, 427 and 470 OF 2022 & 69 of 2023 Between: 1. VINUKONDA VENKATARAMANA, W/O. LATE KONDAIAH, HINDU, NOW AGED 41 YEARS 2. VINUKONDA SIVANI, D/O. LATE KONDAIAH, HINDU, NOW AGED 14 YEARS, 3. VINUKONDA VENKATA CHANDRA SHEKAR, S/O. LATE KONDAIAH HINDU, NOW AGED 7 YEARS, CLAIMANTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL VINUKONDA VENKATARAMANA 1ST CLAIMANT HEREIN) ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VEMAVARAM VILLAGE, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT IRLAPADU VILLAGE MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. DUMPA SISEENDRA REDDY DRIVER OF THE LORRY, S/O. BRAHMA REDDY, HINDU, NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAVILLAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT THE 19T RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY AS NO CLAIM IS MADE AGAINST HIM IN THE APPEAL) 2. BODHA EDUKONDALU, (OWNER OF THE LORRY) S/O. CHINNA VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGE NOT KNOWN, (OWNER OF THE ASHOK LEYLAND DOST VAN TRUCK NO. AP 27 TY 0221) RESIDING AT NARASARAJUPALEM, AYYAPPARAJUPALEM, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, RAMALINGAPURAM, NELLORE (INSURER OF THE ASHOK LEYLAND DOST VAN NO. AP 27 TY 0221) 4. THATHAMSETTY SRINIVASULU, (DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR) S/O. CHINA BOMMAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING NOS. AP 26 TD 9476 AND AP 26 TD 9478 RESIDING AT AKKARAPAKA VILLAGE, D.V SATRAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY AS NO CLAIM IS MADE AGAINST HIM IN THE APPEAL) 5. THATHAMSETTY VENKATESWARLU, (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR) HINDU, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, OWNER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILERBEARING NOS. AP 26 TD 9476 AND AP 26 TD 9478 RESIDING AT AKKARAPAKA VILLAGE, D.V SATRAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 6. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, RAMALINGAPURAM, NELLORE (INSURER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER BEARING NOS. AP 26 TD 9476 AND AP 26 TD 9478 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to set aside the Judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. 24 of 2019 on the file of the on the file of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore, dated 18- 1-2022 and enhance the compensation to Rs.15,00,000/- as claimed or more together with interest @ 12 percent per annum from the date of filing the Original Petition till the date of realization besides costs and fastening the liability against all the respondents and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 49 days in filing this MACMA against the judgment and award in MVOP No. 24/2019 on the file of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District dated 18-1-2022 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs.230, 427 and 470 OF 2022 & 69 of 2023 COMMON JUDGMENT: MACMA No.427 of 2022 and MACMA No.69 of 2023 arise out of orders passed in M.V.O.P. No.23 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- III Additional District Judge, Nellore. Likewise, MACMA Nos.230 and 470 of 2022, arise out of orders passed in M.V.O.P. No.24 of 2019. In fact, both these O.Ps. have been decided by common order dated 18.01.2022, since the claims instituted were arising out of very same accident. Therefore, all these appeals are taken up together and are disposed of by common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. (a) By common order dated 18.01.2022, the tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹11,79,500/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization in respect of the claim instituted in M.V.O.P. No.23 of 2019 and similarly, awarded ₹11,07,283/- along with interest @9% per annum from the 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch date of petition till date of realization in respect of the claim instituted in M.V.O.P. No.24 of 2019. (b) The claimants in both cases have approached the tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act. It is their case that deceased in both cases were in the business of sale of sheep and rams and that in the course of their business activity, they had loaded the sheep in Ashok Leyland Dost Van bearing No.AP 27TY 0221 at Narasarajupalem of Marripadu Mandal and the same were to be offloaded at Red Hills. After delivering the sheep at the place of destination, both deceased, along with three others, including the driver of van, were returning to their village. En route, the van met with accident while trying to cross the tractor and trailer, which was coming in opposite direction. Due to the said accident, both deceased have died after they were taken to hospital. The incident has been reported to police and Crime No.170 of 2018 came to be registered against the drivers of both van and as well as tractor and trailer, later, charge sheet came to be laid. (c) Separate claims came to be instituted by the dependants claiming that deceased were earning about ₹15,000/- per month by doing business, and in respect of the claimant in M.V.O.P. No.23 of 2019, it was also pleaded that the deceased was earning 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch additional income of ₹1,00,000/- per annum on account of cultivation and raising of tobacco crop. Except for the insurer, all other respondents remained ex parte. (d) Insurer filed written statement denying the manner in which accident occurred and that the drivers of both van as well as tractor were negligent in causing the accident. Incidentally, both vehicles were insured with the same insurer. The avocation, age, and income were also disputed. Further stand was taken that the driver of tractor and trailer did not possess valid and effective driving license. (e) Upon considering the pleadings on record, tribunal has framed following issues: 1. Whether the alleged accident occurred on 12.05.2018 at 13-00 hours on NH-16, opposite to Sri Balaji Wines, Sullurpet Town, Sullurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the Ashok Leyland Dost Van Truck No.AP 27TY 0221 or deriver of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 26TD 9476 and AP 26TD 9478 and whether it resulted the death of the deceased/Gairaboina Yogeswara Rao and Vinukonda Kondaiah? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch (f) In order to support the case of claimants, spouses of both deceased were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and an eyewitness to accident as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Officer of insurer was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. (g) The tribunal has decided the 1st issue in favour of claimants, holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of driver of van, but not that of the tractor, resulting in death of both deceased. The compensation payable in both cases came to be considered, and the tribunal has computed income of deceased as ₹7,000/- respectively, considering age of deceased as 45 years in both cases and after applying the deduction towards personal expenses having regard to number of dependants/claimants, awarding future prospects @25%, has determined loss of earnings. The tribunal thereafter proceeded to deduct 10% of the same towards income tax in both cases. It has also awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards love and affection. Further awarded ₹65,983/- towards medical expenses in M.V.O.P. No.24 of 2019. Accordingly, award came to be passed for ₹11,79,500/- and ₹11,07,283/- in M.V.O.P.Nos.23 and 24 respectively along with interest @9% per annum. 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch (h) Assailing the same, these set of appeals are preferred by both insurer as well as claimants. 4. Heard Sri Siva Prasad Katakamsetty, learned counsel for claimants and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for insurer. 5. (a) Learned counsel for insurer mainly contended that since it is an admitted position that the subject van was goods vehicle which had a seating capacity of 1+1, at the time of accident, more than two persons had travelled and the deceased in both claims being unauthorized passengers, the same constituted violation of policy condition, therefore, the tribunal ought not to have fastened any liability on it. It is his submission that even if it were to be accepted that the deceased were travelling in the van due to their business needs as owners of the sheep transported, since persons travelling exceeded the seating capacity, the same amounted to violation of policy conditions, therefore, the tribunal ought to have applied the principle of pay and recovery. (b) He further contended that the tribunal while computing the quantum of compensation has awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards love and affection, which is not justified and is not in consonance with the components of conventional heads that are to be awarded in 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch line with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants tried to support the impugned award by contending that the tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly come to conclusion regarding both liability as well as quantum of compensation, therefore, does not call for any interference. He further contended that since the deceased, being owners of sheep, were returning after effecting sale, there is clear nexus between their travel and purpose, therefore, they cannot be treated as midway passengers by paying the fare. So, it would not amount to violation of conditions of policy. He further contended that the tribunal upon determination of loss of earnings, has applied deduction of 10% towards income tax, which is unjustified, as the income earned is falling far below the taxable slabs, question of deducting any amounts towards the same does not arise. Further, the Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium only to the spouses but not to the other dependants/claimants who are either children or parents under head of parental consortium. 7. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch 8. The claims have been instituted on the basis that the deceased, on 11.05.2018, had loaded sheep and rams in offending van for delivery at Red Hills and later, while returning, met with accident and succumbed. The occurrence of accident and that the driver of van being rash and negligent in causing the accident are not in dispute at present. The issue in controversy with respect to liability is whether the passengers in transport vehicle on account of their death are entitled to be awarded any compensation at all, when the offending van is insured with policy covering for only 1+1. The tribunal, on appreciation of aforesaid aspect, has come to conclusion that the offending van definitely did carry more than 1+1, however, as it opined that the deceased were travelling in the van only on account of their business commitment and returning to their original station, they cannot be considered as unauthorized passengers qua the goods vehicle. To come to said conclusion, the tribunal has drawn support from the judgment of Madras High Court in A.Sampath v. Pachaippan and two others2. Since the deceased were en route to their original station after delivering the sheep, it was construed that their journey was incidental to the 2 2001 (1) CTC 532 8 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch purpose of travel, therefore, the same would not amount to violation of any policy condition. 9. Learned counsel for insurer has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Amudhavalli & Ors. V. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.3, to contend that if a person travels in goods carriage, even if the purpose for which he was in it was to carry own goods, would be of any relevance, as the number of persons exceeded than what has been permitted under the provisions of M.V. Act, qua, the policy issued, clearly tantamount to breach of conditions of policy, therefore, it is a fit case for applying pay and recovery principle. 10. This Court, having gone through aforesaid judgment, is of the opinion that the same would not have any bearing on facts and circumstances of this case. That was a case wherein the deceased was travelling in the offending goods vehicle on payment of fare. Therefore, it was constituted as fundamental breach and amounted to clear violation of conditions of policy, hence, even the principle of pay and recovery was also not extended. Since, as found by the tribunal that in the facts of the present case that the deceased were travelling in goods van as only owners cum handlers of sheep and 3 Special Leave Petition (C) No.6117 of 2020, dated 26.09.2025 9 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch returning after delivery, clearly there is purpose for travel, therefore, they cannot be considered as completely strangers and unauthorized passengers and the same constitutes integral to their act. Therefore, the contention of insurer on this count does not impress this Court to take any different view than that of the tribunal. 11. The tribunal has arrived at the compensation and in the process has applied deduction of 10% towards income tax. There is no reasoning as to why such deduction has been applied. As ex facie, the income adopted by tribunal being ₹7,000/- per month and considering the year of accident to be 2018, definitely, the annual income is below the taxable slab under the provisions of IT Act. Normally, income tax is deducted only in cases where the deceased has been assessed to income tax and income was sought to be claimed basing on IT returns or there is business income which has been disclosed, as deceased in both cases do not come under said scenario, tribunal was clearly not justified in deducting any amount towards income tax. 12. Lastly coming to the aspect of conventional heads, tribunal ought to have followed the dictum laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case and Magma General Insurance Company 10 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others4, in awarding loss of consortium even to dependent children and parents. 13. The amounts awarded towards love and affection and conventional heads are accordingly revised by determining just and fair compensation as under:- M.V.O.P. No.23 of 2019: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income ₹7,000/- Yearly Income ₹84,000/- Future Prospects (Age being 45 years) 25% of ₹84,000/- = ₹21,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/4) 1,05,000 – 26,250 = ₹78,750/- Multiplier (14) 78,750 x 14 = ₹11,02,500/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹11,02,500/- Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Loss of Funeral Expenses ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Loss of Consortium 48400 x 6 = ₹2,90,400/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 11 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Total ₹14,29,200/- M.V.O.P. No.24 of 2019: Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income ₹7,000/- Yearly Income ₹84,000/- Future Prospects (Age being 45 years) 25% of ₹84,000/- = ₹21,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Deduction (1/3) 1,05,000 – 35,000 = ₹70,000/- Multiplier (14) 70,000 x 14 = ₹9,80,000/- Loss of Income of the deceased ₹9,80,000/- Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Loss of Funeral Expenses ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Loss of Consortium 48,400 x 3 = ₹1,45,200/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 12 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch V. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Medical Expenses ₹65,983/- Total ₹12,27,483/- 14. In the result, MACMA Nos.230 of 2022 and 69 of 2023 filed by the insurer are dismissed, and MACMA Nos.427 and 470 of 2022 are partly allowed with the following directions: a. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.23 of 219 is enhanced to ₹14,29,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. b. The 3rd respondent - Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, after deducting the 13 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. c. Out of the said compensation amount, 1st appellant is entitled for an amount of ₹5,74,200/- along with accrued interest thereon, appellants 2, 5 and 6 are entitled for an amount of ₹1,25,000/- each along with accrued interest thereon and appellants 3 and 4 are entitled for an amount of ₹2,40,000/- each along with accrued interest thereon. d. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.24 of 219 is enhanced to ₹12,27,483/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. e. The 3rd respondent - Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. f. Out of the said compensation amount, the 1st appellant is entitled for an amount of ₹4,77,483/- along with accrued interest thereon and appellants 2 and 3 are entitled for an amount of ₹3,75,000/- each along with accrued interest thereon 14 CGR, J MACMA. No.230 of 2022 & batch g. On such deposit being made by the insurer, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw their proportionate shares without furnishing any security. h. The entire costs are awarded in favour of the 1st appellant in both matters. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 14.10.2025 SS