APHC010295652017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 828/2017 Between: 1. SMT. D RAMANAMMA, SRIKAKULAM DIST & 1 OTHER, W/O.DHILLESWARARAO, AGED 50 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O.TURAKA VEEDHI OF UDAYAPURAM VILLAGE, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 2. DUVVADA DHILLESWARARAO, S/O.LATE LATCHANNA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O.TURAKA VEEDHI, UDAYAPRUAM VILLAGE, PALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. P MAHESH REDDY SECUNDERABAD 3 OTHERS, S/O.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 60 YEARS, EMPLOYEE WORKING IN A PRIVATE ORGANISATION AS SUPERVISOR, D.NO.1-10-73, BEGAMPETA, SECUNDERABAD, DRIVER OF SCOOTER BEARING NO.A.P.13-A/4482. 2. GUMIREDDY SAMBASIVAREDDY, S/O.NAVAPPAREDDY, AGED 34 YEARS, DIRVER OF LORRY A.P.2/T-6899, RESIDENT OF R.P.KOTTALA VILLAGE, RAMAGIRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, 3. Y SHIVASANKAREEDY, S/O.SANKARREDDY, AGED 29 YEARS, FLEET OWNER C/O.SHRI RAMAKRISHNA LORRY TRANSPORT, D.NO.1/92/C1-B.2, BEHIND P & T COLONY, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ANANTHAPUR. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE ADDED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1025/02 DATED 28-02-2003) 2 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.828 of 2017 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to against the order and decree dated 21-07-2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.176 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam District IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 1755 OF 2017 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 to condone the delay of 3710 days in representing the MACMA SR.No. 736 of 2007 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(MACMAMP 1756 OF 2017 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 to condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL 2. The Court made the following: 3 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.828 of 2017 JUDGMENT: Heard, Sri K.M.R Bala Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the claimant. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. This is the matter of 2017 which suffered several adjournments for the purpose of ensuring the appearance of respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. As seen from the record, respondent No.1 is the driver of the Scooter and deceased is the pillion rider. Respondent No.2 is the driver of the lorry, Respondent No.3 is the owner of the lorry and Respondent No.4 is the Insurance Company represented by the Divisional Manager. 4. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.176 of 2001, dated 21.07.2006, the present Appeal is filed, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. 5. Since there is no representation on behalf of the respondents even today, this Court is constrained to proceed with the hearing of the Appeal. 6. Sri K.M.R Bala Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri P.Durga Prasad made submissions, drawing the attention of the Court to the Order passed in the M.V.O.P.No.176 of 2001, dated 21.07.2006. 7. The narration of the facts are as follows: The deceased who was aged about 19 years working under a contractor at Hyderabad and earning Rs.2,100/- per month and he used to send the amount to his parents towards maintenance. On 05.10.1999, the deceased, while travelling along with his co-worker as pillion rider, met with an accident and died instantaneously. The offending vehicle was the lorry bearing No.AP02-6899. 4 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.828 of 2017 8. The contention advanced is that the cause of accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, and pleaded to grant compensation by fixing them liable. 9. The parties are arrayed as mentioned in the present Appeal before this Court. The claimants are mother and father of the deceased and the mother of the deceased was examined as PW1. 10. The co-worker of deceased, travelling along with the deceased, was examined as PW.2, who categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Court below, while examining the evidence of PW.2, has taken note that Ex.A1-First Information Report, which states that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the Scooterist ie., Respondent No.1 and the driver of the offending lorry, which hit them, as a result of which the co-worker and the deceased fell on the foot path, and the deceased died instantaneously. Ex.A2 is the Inquest Report. Ex.A3 is the Postmortem Certificate. Ex.A4 is the Charge sheet and Ex.A5 is the letter addressed by one Y.Siva Sankar Reddy, Fleet Owner. The respondent representing the Insurance Company marked Ex.B1, which is the copy of Certificate–cum–Policy Schedule issued by the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company. 11. While dealing with the matter, the Tribunal has framed the following two issues: i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? 12. The Tribunal has answered the first issue in favour of the petitioner, holding that the accident occurred on 05.10.1999 on the account of the negligence of both the Scooterist and the driver of the lorry and while coming to the quantum of compensation awarded to the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.81,000/-. 5 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.828 of 2017 13. The learned counsel for the claimants has made a submission that the compensation awarded is meager and that the Tribunal has not applied the multiplier method correctly. The further contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the Tribunal erred in understanding the contention of the petitioner and went wrong in applying Multiplier method by taking the age of the dependants of the deceased which is incorrect. He further contends that the Co-workers, who were examined as PW.2 and PW.3, stated in the examination that they are getting Rs.2,100/- per month and they hail from the same village and working under the same contractor as Rod Benders at Hyderabad. In the examination they further stated that they are being paid Rs.70/- per day. 14. As seen from the record, there is no reference in the Order as to whether the said PW.2 and PW.3 were cross examined to rebut the stand taken by them that they are being paid Rs.70/- per day. 15. The further arguments of the appellants‟ counsel is that assuming for a moment, if the daily income of the deceased is taken as Rs.50/-, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.1500/- (Rs.50 x 30). The appellants‟ counsel further contends that the Tribunal has wrongly taken Rs.500/- as monthly income instead of Rs.1,500/- and hence the Order of Tribunal is totally misplaced and erroneous. 16. This Court, having examined the record and the arguments made by the appellants‟ counsel at length, prima facie finds that the order of the Tribunal is ex facie erroneous. The multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the very verdict of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another1. 17. When there are more than one dependant, the age of the deceased needs to be taken into consideration. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court 1 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 6 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.828 of 2017 in Sarla Verma‟s case, has laid down guidelines for assessing compensation in the case of the death, which read as follows: “9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents.” 18. Following the above said principle and also the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Sali and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others 2 , this Court vide judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed in M.A.C.M.A.No.1899 of 2017, adopted the multiplier „18‟ based on the age of the deceased and awarded the compensation accordingly. 19. In the present case, the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 19 years, and in view of the above, the multiplier „18‟ has to be taken into consideration. 20. There is no justification to this Court to deviate from the evidence adduced by the claimants and on behalf of them who deposed that they are being paid Rs.70/- per day. There is no rebuttal to the said evidence and this Court finds that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the monthly income as Rs.500/-. Since the accident occurred in the year 1999 and as per the evidence, it is certainly clear that the earning capacity of the deceased was Rs.2,100/- per month. The Multiplier Method ie., 18 x 2100/- need to be taken into consideration. 21. Further, the Tribunal was totally misplaced and misdirected while taking into consideration the other aspects relating to the entitlement of the claimants. 2 (2012) 11 SCC 738 7 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.828 of 2017 22. In the recent Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi & Others 3, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after discussing elaborately at length, has concluded that: 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should le the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 which have reproduced herein before. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarala Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that Judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years 3 AIR 2017 SC 5157 8 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.828 of 2017 23. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while dealing with other conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses i.e., Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The above amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. There is a conclusion at Para No.59 regarding the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court is of the opinion that the said observation is applicable to this case also. 24. Therefore, in view of the said observation and applying the multiplier method, the compensation payable to the claimants is calculated as under: Description Calculation Amount (Rs.) Income per month Rs.2,100/- Income per annum Rs.2,100/- x 12 Rs.25,200/- Personal and living expenses (1/2) Rs.25,200/- x 1/2 Rs.12,600/- Contribution to the family Rs.25,200 - Rs.12,600/- Rs.12,600/- Compensation on applying Multiplier Rs.12,600/- x 18 Rs.2,26,800/- Consortium to the claimants Rs.40,000/- x 2 Rs.80,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Total compensation payable Rs.3,36,800/- 25. As the funeral expenses and consortium are to be enhanced by 10% every three years, the consortium amount comes to Rs.1,41,725/-. Funeral expenses are also to be enhanced, then the amount comes to Rs.26,574/-. After enhancing the amount under „loss of estate‟, the amount comes to Rs.26,574/-. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,26,800/- + Rs.1,41,725/- + Rs.26,574/- + Rs.26,574/- = Rs.4,21,673/-. 9 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.828 of 2017 26. In fine, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation granted to the claimants from Rs.81,000/- to Rs.4,21,673/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The respondents 1, 3 and 4 are directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier as per the liability fixed by the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per their apportioned shares before the Tribunal. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee on the compensation amount awarded over and above the amount claimed in the Claim Petition. It is made clear that the interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount shall be paid from the date of this order till the date of realization. 27. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 20.12.2025 SSA/CMK/BMS