APHC010028302020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 114/2020 Between: 1.THE APSRTC, REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD NOW AT VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1.CHINTALA ARUNA KUMARI, W/O LATE, SAMBA MURTY, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 46-5-52 UPPU STREET, NEAR GANDHI STATUE, JAMPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM. 2.CHINTALA SAI VIHARI, S/O SAMBA MURTY, AGED 21 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 46-5-52 UPPU STREET, NEAR GANDHI STATUE, JAMPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. (RESPONDENT 2 DECLARED AS MAJOR VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26/08/2022 IN I A NO.1/2022) 3.CHINTALA SUSHEELA, W/O LATE RAMANA MURTHY, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6-60, 31D STREET MALLAYYA PETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL. 4.SK ABDHUL RAZAK, S/O SK.MAHABOOB, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC- DRIVER OF APSRTC, R/O D.NO.3-28 DURGA VARI STREET NEAR RAMALAYAM SANIVARAPU PETA, ELURU. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed in MVOP No. 794 of 2017 dated 13/05/2019 On the file of the Chairman MACT Cum District Judge Rajamahendravaram to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 70 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Chairman MACT Cum District Judge Rajamahendravaram passed in MVOP NO. 794 of 2017 dt. 13.05.2019 and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP NO.794 / 2019 dt. 13.05.2019 On the file of the Chairman MACT Cum District Judge Rajamahendravaram pending disposal of the above MACMA 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 declare me as major and discharge my mother - the 2nd respondent herein as my guardian and pass IA NO: 2 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 permit withdraw the amount which was deposited by the respondent in compliance with the Orders, dt.07-02-2020 of this Hon'ble Court in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in the above MACMA., filed against the MVOP. No. 794/2017 on the file of MACT cum District Court, Rajamahendravaram and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.V HEMANTH KUMAR * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR +MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.114 OF 2020 % 20.11.2025 # The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad now at Vijayawada. ……Petitioner And: $ Chintala Aruna Kumari and others ….Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioner : SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALA FOR APSRTC ^Counsel for the respondents :V. HEMANTH KUMAR <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * MACMA No.114 OF 2020 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20.11.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J The Court made the following Judgment: 1. The present appeal is filed by the APSRTC aggrieved by order dated 13.05.2019 passed in MVOP No.794 of 2017, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioners is that on 03.03.2017 at about 10:35 am the deceased (Chintala Sambha Murthy) was travelling on his motorcycle to immerse Lord Ganesha Idol, when he reached Pole No.29 of Rail Bridge at Godavari River, APSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.AP29Z 2480 driven by the 1st respondent in rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the deceased from behind and ran over him and later he died due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries, especially injury to brain. 4. It is further case of the petitioners that at the time of death, the deceased was aged 45 years and earning Rs.30,000/- per month as photographer. The claimants (wife, son and mother) filed petition under Section 161 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of Chintala Sambha Murthy in the accident that was occurred on 26.08.2017. 5. The 2nd respondent-APSRTC/the appellant filed counter affidavit and the same was adopted by the 1st respondent-driver. The 2nd respondent disputed the averments made in the claim petition inter alia denying the occupation and income of the deceased. It was further contended by the 2nd respondent that the deceased drove the motor vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed without following the traffic rules. It is further case of the 2nd respondent that the deceased tried to over take another motor cycle, which was going by the side of the bus and fell down on the road in which he sustained injuries. It was further case that, the accident was occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased. It was further stated that the compensation claimed was excessive. 6. In order to prove the case of the claimants, they have examined PWs-1 to 3 and marked Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.X1 & X2 were marked through PW-3. On the other hand, the respondents have examined RW-1. No documents were marked. 7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the Tribunal order dated 13.05.2019 partly allowed the claim of the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.19,97,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 & 2. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 9. Perused the record. 10. The counsel for the appellant would contend that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Though, the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW-1, nothing is elicited to prove that the deceased was driving the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner. Apart from the same on a perusal of the deposition of RW-1, it is evident that the same is nothing but reiteration of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore the evidence of RW-1 will not help to prove the case of 2nd respondent/APSRTC. On the other hand, the claimants have examined PW-2, eye witnesses to the accident, who categorically deposed that the offending bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from behind. Further, the claimants have filed Ex.A1 copy of FIR in Crime No.231/2017, on the file of II Town Police Station, Rajamahendravaram and Ex.A9 charge sheet. On perusal of the above documents, it is evident that the Police after investing into the matter has come to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver. The respondents did not place anything on record to disprove the same. In the absence of any evidence, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver. 11. Coming to the income of the deceased, it is stated that the deceased was photographer by profession and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, the claimants filed Ex.A5, dated 07.07.2018 certificate given by the President Godavari Professionals Photographer and Related Welfare Association, Rajahmahendravaram to show that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Further, Ex.A6 and A7, Identity Cards of the deceased were marked. Apart from the same, the claimants have also examined PW-3, Member of Godavari Professionals Photographer and Related Welfare Association, Rajamahendravaram, who deposed that the deceased was a member of the said association and earning Rs.40,000/- per month by attending various functions. Considering the documents put forth by the claimants, the Tribunal has given a finding that Ex.A5 is not a salary certificate and disbelieved the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. This Court is also of the opinion that Ex.A5 is not a salary certificate and therefore no reliance can be placed on the same. 12. Further, during the course of cross examination, PW-3 categorically deposed that there is no proof to show that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- (annual income comes to Rs.2,16,000/-). After deducting 1/3rd of income towards personal expenses, the income was taken as Rs.1,44,000/- per annum and by applying multiplier 13, the loss of income was calculated at Rs.18,72,000/-. Further, the Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 13. In this regard, the counsel for the respondent would contend that while passing the award, the Tribunal has not granted, any compensation towards, future prospects, loss of estate and loss of consortium. The counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi”1 and submits that as per the said judgment, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation towards the above conventional heads. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that compensation was not awarded towards the above conventional heads. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation towards the said heads as per the judgment of ‘Pranay Sethi’, in which at paragraph 59.4, it was held as under: “59.4: In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be 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.” 14. In view of the above judgment, if the deceased is self employed, 25% of future prospects have to be awarded. Further, an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium has to be calculated for all the three dependents. Apart from the same, the claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- loss of love 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 and affection. Further, the counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier as 13 inasmuch as, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varms’ case, multiplier 14 has to applied if the deceased was aged between 41 to 45 years. 15. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, the Tribunal did not apply the correct multiplier to the case on hand. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarala Varma’s case, at paragraph 42 held as under: “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years) reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M- 14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years., ” 16. Further, the view taken in Sarala Varma’s Case was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2 2 AIR 2020 SC 3076 17. Therefore, the total compensation to the claimants is calculated as under: S.No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs.18,000/- x 12 = Rs.2,16,000/- 2. Future prospects Rs.54,000/- (i.e., 25% of the income) 3. Total Income Rs.2,70,000/- 4. Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.2,70,000/- 1/3rd) 5. Multiplier of 14 Rs.25,20,000/- 6. Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3) 7. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 8 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 9 Love and affection Rs.10,000/- TOTAL Rs.26,80,000/- 18. Though, the respondents have not filed any appeal for enhancement of compensation, this Court is duty bound to see that just compensation paid to the claimants. Further, the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ramla and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others”3 at para 5 of the Judgment held as under: “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no 3 3 (2019) 2 SCC 192 restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.” 19. Taking into consideration of totality of the facts of the case, the Courts are duty bound to award just compensation especially while dealing with the beneficial and welfare legislation. Further though the Tribunal has granted interest @ 6% per annum, in view of the fact that this Court consistently awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum, the same rate of interest shall be granted to the case on hand also. 20. In view thereof, though the claimants have not filed appeal for enhancement of compensation, following the ration laid down in the judgment referred to herein above, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.19,97,000/- to Rs.26,80,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum by modifying the Award passed by the Tribunal. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, but the order dated 13.05.2019 passed in MVOP No.794 of 2017, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Rajamahendravaram is hereby modified with respect to the amount of compensation as stated above and the appellant is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 20.11.2025 DR 02 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.114 of 2020 Date 20.11.2025 U DR