APHC010022212022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI % WEDNESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.43 of 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 20-09-2019 passed in MVOP.No.227 of 2016, on the file of' Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. Between: 1. V.Sharmila, W/o late V Habibullah, aged about 25 years, Muslim, housewife, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Minor V Farhana, D/o late V Habibullah, aged about 6 years, Muslim, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. Minor V Rishad, S/o late V Habibullah, aged about 4 years, Muslim, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 4. Smt V Wazeer Bee, W/o V Sabjan, aged about 58 years, Muslim, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. V Sabjan, S/o late Madha Saheb, aged about 64 years, Muslim, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. (Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are minors rep by their mother the guardian 1®* appellant V.Sharmila) ...Appellants/Petitioners AND 1. Chalamkoti Naresh, S/o C Venkataramana, aged about 30 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.6-569/2, Amaranadha Reddy Colony, Kalikiri Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Reddivari Bhaskar Reddy, S/o R Vasudeva Reddy, aged about 50 years, residing at D.No.3-133A, Jogilivariipalli Village, H/o Gundlur Village of Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. National Insurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager nearer office situated at Seshapeeran Street, Chittoor. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: None Appeared Counsel for Respondent No.3 The Court made the following order: : Sri Burla Siva Rama Krishna : Sri T S Rayalu 7 / ■ APHC010022212022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRApESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GDNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 43/2022 Between: 1.VSHARMILA, W/0 LATE V HABIBULLAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, MUSLIM, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D.N0.336, CHITTIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, H/0 CHALAVARIPALLI OF PULICHERLAMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT . 2. MINOR V FARHANA, D/0 LATE V HABIBULLAH, AtBED ABOUT 6 YEARS, MUSLIM, RESIDING AT CHITTIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, H/0 CHALAVARIPALLI OF PULICHERLAMANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT . 3. MINOR V RISHAD, S/O LATE V HABIBULLAH, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, MUSLIM, RESIDING AT -D.N0.336, CHITTIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, H/O CHALAVARIPALLI OF PULICHERLAMANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT.. . 4.SMT V WAZEER BEE, W/0 V SABJAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MUSLIM. RESIDING AT -D.N0.336, CHITTIREDDYPALLI 'village, H/0 CHALAVARIPALLI OF PULICHERLAMANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT . 5.V SABJAN, S/O LATE MADHA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. MUSLIM, RESIDING AT CHITTIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, H/O CHALAVARIPALLI OF PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT .. ** .D.N0.336, D.N0.336, ...APPELLANT(S) AND 2 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.43 of 2022 1.CHALAMKOTI NARESH, S/0 C VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS , HINDU, RESIDING AT D.NO.6-569/2, AMARANADHA REDDY COLONY, KALIKIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT . 2.REDDIVARI BHASKAR REDDY, S/O R VASUDEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.N0.3-133a’ JOGILIVARJIPALLI VILLAGE, H/0 GUNDLUR VILLAGE OF KALIKIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT . 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER NEARER OFFICE SITUATED AT SESHAPEERAN STREET, CHITTOOR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Decree And Judgment passed in MVOP.No.227 of 2016, dated.20-09-2019, on the file of Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Principal District Judge, Chittoor. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. BURLA SIVA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2.TS RAYALU The Court made the following; 3 CGR, J. MAGMA.No.43 of 2022 « THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN / M.A.C.M.A. No.43 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is filed by appellants/claimants dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the order, dated 20.09.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.227 qf 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-curn-Principal District Judge, Chittoor (“the Tribunal”), by which, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,80,000/- on account of death of deceased V. Habibullah, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of institution of petition till realisation. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows; (a) Wife, minor children and parents of deceased are claimants. Claim has been preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.(for short, “the Act”), seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of death of deceased. The deceased stated to be in the business of jaggery, which is seasonal in nature and aged about 36 years as on the date of accident. In the course of business, it is stated 4 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.43 of 2022 that he was gping by motorcycle for purchase of jaggery and en route met with accident on account of hit by Bolero vehicle, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The accident occurred on 21.04.2016 at about 7.45 p.m. and based on the report, Crime No.30 of 2016 has been registered against the driver of the offending jeep for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I PC and later, upon investigation, charge-sheet laid against him. Basing on the same, the present claim has been instituted. (b) The driver of the jeep remained ex parte. The owne,r and Insurer, both.filed written statements denying the manner in which accident occurred and that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicles, besides, they have also denied the avocation, income, age and compensation claimed as well to be on higher side. (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1®‘ respondent, who drove the Bolero bearing registration No.AP-03-BG-9669? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” (d) In support of their case, 1®' claimant, wife of deceased, got examined as PW.1 and eyewitnesses to accident as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Exs.AI to A6. On the other hand, respondents got examined RWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.BI ot B3. / \ ■ CGR, J. MAGMA. No.43of2022 (e) On appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal has answered first issue in favour of claimants holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the jeep, which resulted in death of deceased. Insofar as compensation is concerned, though claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month on account of jaggery business, as they could not substantiate the same with appropriate evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the income of deceased on notional basis b> applying the minimum wages payable in the year 2016 to agricultural coolies, hence income was determined as Rs. 6,000 per month. Of which 1/4*^ has been deducted towards personal expenses, considering the number of dependent family members, by applying multiplier of 15, determined the loss of income as Rs.8,10,000/-. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively, in total awarded Rs.8,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Being dis satisfied with the quantum of compensation so awarded, present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 4. Heard Ms.Mulugu Sandhya Rani, learned counsel, representing Sri B.Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri TS. Rayalu, learned counsel for the 3"^^ respondent Insurer. \ \ 6 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.43 of 2022 Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal has merely adopted minimum wages payable to agricultural collie and determined the income of deceased, ignoring the evidence of PW.1, suggesting clearly that deceased was in the business of jaggery and earning about Rs.20,000/- per month, therefore, the said approach * is clearly erroneous. She further contended that the Tribunal has erred in not considering to grant future prospects and also components falling under conventional heads to the minor children and dependent parents, as even they are entitled to the same. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insyranee Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi^; Sarla Verma v. D.T.C.^; Magma National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram^ and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod". 5. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the 3'^^ respondent Insurer tried to support the impugned order by contending that appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has come to conclusion and determined just and fair compensation, the order needs no interference, qua the assessment of income of deceased. However, with respect to non-granting of future prospects on ' (2017) 16 see 680 2 (2009) 6 see 121 ^(2018) 18 see 130 '*(2022) see OnLine Se 1683 \ \ 7 CGR, J. MAGMA.No.43of 2022 and the components under conventional heads to other dependant family members, he fairly conceded that the said issues are no more res Integra \n view of the judgments cited above by the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both 7. the learned counsel. The Insurer is not in appeal challenging the liability or the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, the occurrence of accident, negligence on the part of driver of the 8. offending vehicle and liability per se are not in issue. The Tribunal has determined the compensation and in the process has assessed income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- jDer month. It is the case of claimants that the deceased was in the business of jaggery, which was seasonal in nature and thereby he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Except for self-statement of PW.1, there is no other piece of eviden«e in any form to support the same. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly has not given much credence to the evidence of PW.1. Since, even in cases where no evidence is forthcoming, it is the duty of the Tribunal to assess the reasonable income of a person or victim, it proceeded to determine the same. The accident occurred in the year 2016, therefore, the Tribunal ■vV I has considered the minimum wages payable to coolies and accordingly \ \ V; 8 CGR, J. MAGMA. No.43 of 2022 assessed the income as Rs.200/- per day, translating to Rs.6,000/- per month. In the opinion of this Court, the said approach of the Tribunal is clearly justified and definitely cannot be said to be without any basis or erroneous. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such assessment of income. 9. Insofar as the other two contentions are concerned, i.e. granting of future prospects and the components of conventional heads to the minor children and parents of deceased, these issues are no more res Integra, claimants are entitled for the said amount. As deceased is considered to be self-employed, considering his age to be of 36 years the loss of earnings have to be assessed considering future prospects at the rate of 40%. 10. Conventional Heads: On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi’s case\ Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram^, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.^, and Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo®, this Court award the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral m 5(2021) 11 see 780 ®2024 see Online Se 1901 \ V 9 CGR, J. MAGMA.No.43of 2022 s. Expenses, as f48,400/- per claimant each, ?18,150./- and 8,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojaiini’s case®. 11. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid observations and findings of this Court, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as mentioned below: Amount Entitled in rupees S.N6. Description of the Head ?6,000/-x 12 = Rs.72,000/- 1 Net Annual Income ?28,800/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Future prospects (at the age of 36 years) 2 Total Income ?1,00,800/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 1/4**^ as dependants are 5 in number) Total Annual Loss of Dependency ! 3 f25,200/- V 4 f75,600/- 15x?75,600/- = ?11,34,000/- 5 Multiplier of 15 for the age of 36 years / IF Conventional Heads: (i) Loss of consortium (5 claimants x Rs.48400/-) (ii) Loss of Estate 6 ?2,42,000/- f18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses f18,150/- ■7. Total Compensation ?14,12,300/- In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. stands allowed and 3^® respondent 12. Insurer is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 14,12,300/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The 3^® respondent Insurer is 10 CGR, J. magma. No.43 of 2022 directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of of this judgment, after deducting the amount; if any, deposited earlier, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law. Out of the said compensation amount, 1®* claimant-wife is entitled to Rs.5,32,300/- along with accrued interest thereon; 2^^^ and 3^^^ claimants are entitled to Rs.2,90,000/- each along with accrued interest thereon; and 4‘^ and 5*^ respondents are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- each along with interest thereon. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration any, in this case shall stand closed compensation a copy accrued , if Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ To 1. The Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Burla Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T S Rayalu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies TK vna \ \ \ % \ HIGH COURT DATED: 15/10/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA No.43 of 2022 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS APHC010022212022 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.43 of 2022 Between: 1. V.Sharmila, W/o late V Habibullah, aged about 25 years, Muslim, housewife, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Minor V Farhana, D/o late V Habibullah, aged about 6 years, Muslim, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. Minor V Rishad, S/o late V Habibullah, aged about 4 years, Muslim, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 4. Smt V Wazeer Bee, W/o V Sabjan, aged about 58 years, Muslim, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. V Sabjan, S/o late Madha Saheb, aged about 64 years, Muslim, R/o. D.No.336, Chittireddypalli Village, H/o Chalavaripalli of Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. (Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are minors rep by their mother the guardian appellant V.Sharmila) ...Appellants/Petitioners AND Chalamkoti Naresh, S/o C Venkataramana, aged about 30 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.6-569/2, Amaranadha Reddy Colony, Kalikiri Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. 1. / Reddivari Bhaskar Reddy, S/o R Vasudeva Reddy, aged about 50 years, residing at D.No.3-133A, Jogilivariipalli Village, H/o Gundlur Village of Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. 3. National Insurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager nearer office situated at Seshapeeran Street, Chittoor. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 20-09-2019 passed in MVOP.No.227 of 2016, on the file of Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Burla Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of Sri T S Rayalu, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed; 2. That the 3'^'^ respondent-insurer be and is hereby directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 14,12,300/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a; 3. That the 3*^^ respondent-insurer be and is hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per taw; That Out of the said compensation amount, 1"* claimant-wife be and is heroby entitled to Rs.5,32,300/-along with accrued interest thereon; 5 That 2""' and 3'"^ claimants be and are hereby entitled to Rs.2,90,000/- each along with accrued interest thereon and; 6. That 4**' and 5'^ respondents be and are hereby entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- each along with accrued interest thereon; 7. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To i The Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2. Two CD Copies TK vna >r i / \ HIGH COURT \ \ DATED: 15/10/2025 \ \ \ \ DECREE MACMA No.43 of 2022 if 0 6 NOV 2025 . ^^rrent Sectiojjx'vi^ rn Co O ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS