APHC010111202019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY. THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE < o m V J; I lU m W i& f or * rcod C) PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 302 OF 2019 Between:- 1. Buchingari Govindamma, W/o late B.Yadagiri, aged about 33 years, 2. Buchingari Pavani. D/o. Late B.Yadagiri 14 years, 3. Buchingari Sravani, D/o. Late B.Yadagiri 11 years. (Appellants 2 and 3 are Being Minors rep., by their Mother 1 appellant.) St 4. Buchingari Penchalaiah, S/o. Rosaiah, aged about 63 years 5. Buchingari Tirupathamma, W/o. Penchalaiah, aged about 58 years (All are R/o. Midderevu Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Presently R/o. C.V.R.Madhura Nagar, Muthukur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.) j ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 1. D.V.B Vidya Sagar, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Owners of Tipper Bearing NO.AP-16-TV-2354 R/o.D.No.569-2-12/1, Patamata, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. Canara Bank Road 2. National Insurance Company Ltd., rep by its Branch Manager, Gandhi Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. {R.1 not necessary) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Sec 173 of MV Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No.629 of 2010 dt.03-08-2016 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims, Tribunal, Nellore. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, Advocate for Respondent No.2. papers This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the MACMA be and is hereby Allowed. 2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced to Rs.8,44,000/- from Rs.6,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 3. That the appeal be and is hereby directed to pay the additional court fee by the claimants within 30 days for the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 4. That the compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. SDI- A.VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR n //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Motor Accidents Claims, Tribunal, Nellore. Two C.D Copies. SSL TAC HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 DECREE MA.CWIA. NO. 302 OF 2019 OF ANOT^ ov 1 AUG 2025 ml- «&S®SPATCH^^^ MACMA IS ALLOWED APHC010111202019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 302 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Sec 173 of MV Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No.629 of 2010 dt.03-08-2016 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims, Tribunal, Nellore. Between 1. Buchingari Govindamma, W/o late B.Yadagiri, aged about 33 years, 2. Buchingari Pavani, D/o. Late B.Yadagiri 14 years, 3. Buchingari Sravani, D/o. Late B.Yadagiri 11 years, (Appellants 2 and 3 are Being Minors rep., by their Mother 1 appellant.) 4. Buchingari Penchalaiah, S/o. Rosaiah, aged about 63 years 5. Buchingari Tirupathamma, W/o. Penchalaiah, aged about 58 years, (All are R/o. Midderevu village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Presently R/o. C.V.R.Madhura Nagar, Muthukur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.) St ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS AND 1. D.V.B Vidya Sagar, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Owners of Tipper Bearing NO.AP-16-TV-2354, Patamata, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. 2. National Insurance Company Ltd., rep by its Branch Manager, Gandhi Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. (R.1 not necessary) R/o.D.No.569-2-12/1 Canara Bank Road ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI. P. GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI. SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following JUDGMENT: APHC010111202019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 302/2019 Between: Buchingari Govindamma and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND DVB Vidya Sagar and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.PGANGARAMI REDDY ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA 2. The Court made the following: VS,J MACMA_302 2019 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 03.08.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.629 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- towards total compensation to the claimants, as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2, this instant appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Buchingari Yadagiri (hereinafter referred to as deceased”) who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on the intervening night of 12/13.09.2009 at about 12.00 midnight near Coal Yard, NEC Road, Krishnapatnam Port, Muthukur Mandal. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased, petitioner No.4 is the father and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased. 2) 3) 4) The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: On the intervening night of 12/13.09.2009 while deceased was proceeding to Krishnapatnam port, on his motorcycle, and when he reached near Coal Yard near NEC Road, Krishnapatnam port, tipper bearing No.AP 16 TV 2354 of respondent No.1 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of'dec.eased and as a result of which, the 3 VS,J MACMA 302 2019 deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries, on his temporal region and other parts of the body, and died instantaneously on the spot, and his dead body was shifted to DSR Government Hospital, Nellore, and the accident was reported against the driver of respondent No.1 and a case in Crime No.20 of 2009 of Krishnapatnam Police Station was registered, and, after due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of respondent No.1. At the time of death of the deceased in the accident^ he was aged 27 years, hale and healthy and worked as Port worker in V.G.Ghanta Marine Works, Krishnapatnam port and earned Rs.6,750/- per month as salary and was spending his entire salary to the petitioners, who are his wife, children and parents. Because of his untimely demise in the accident, they suffered loss of dependency. Tipper of respondent No.1 was insured with respondent No.2, and the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Thus, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensation to the petitioners. 5) Respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle filed a counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the driver of the tipper was experienced and had driving license and at the time of accident, deceased, without observing traffic on the road, himself involved in the accident and the offending tipper was insured with respondent No.2, therefore, if any compensation is awarded, respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the same and requested to dismiss the petition. 6) 4 VS,J MACMA 302_2019 7) Respondent No.2 - insurance company filed a counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of deceased and driver of respondent No.1, as such the owner and insurer of motorcycle of deceased bearing No.AP 03 A 3096 are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings, and that the driver of respondent No.1 had no valid driving license to drive the tipper and requested to dismiss the petition. 8) Respondent No.2 filed additional counter contending that the deceased did not work as Port Worker in V.G.Ghanta Marine Works, Krishnapatnam Port, and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and requested to dismiss the petition. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 9) (1) Whether the death of deceased by name Buchingari Yadagiri was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper bearing No.AP 16TV 2354 owned by R1 ? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so, against whom? (3) To what relief? 10) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. 11) Taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, while answering jssue No.1, the Tribunal held that the 5 VS,J MAGMA 302 2019 accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of respondent No.1. 12) Issue Nos.2 and 3 also answered in favour of the claimants and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the claimant and awarded Rs.6,40,000/- under different heads towards compensation. Seeking enhancement of the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellants - claimants. 13) Learned counsel for the appellants - claimants contended that the lower Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects of the deceased as he died at the age of ‘27’ years and the Tribunal ought to have relied upon the oral evidence of P.W.3 and salary certificate Ex.A.6 and should have granted compensation as claimed by the claimants, requested to allow the appeal. 14) Learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per annum and awarded reasonable compensation, which needs no interference by this Court, and requested to dismiss the present appeal. 15) Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: Whether the award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 6 VS,J MACMA 302_2019 16) I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. Though respondent No.2 contended that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of deceased and driver of respondent No.1, it failed to examine driver of respondent No.1, who is the best person to speak about negligence of deceased in the accident. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of driver of respondent No.1 in support of the case of respondent No.2, the contention of respondent No.2 that the deceased also contributed to the accident, has no merit and the same is not acceptable. 17) Further, there is no controversy from respondent No.2 regarding death of deceased in the said accident and the same is proved by the petitioners with the aid of Exs.A.2 and A.3 which are inquest report and postmortem certificate. 18) Further, Ex.A.1 - copy of F.I.R and Ex.A.4 - copy of Charge Sheet disclosed that after investigation police filed charge sheet against the driver of respondent No.1. Therefore, basing on Exs.A.1 and A.4, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accidenthad occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of respondent No.1. 19) To prove the earnings of the deceased,^ petitioners examined P.W.3, who is working as Senior Officer in V.G.Ghanta Marine Works, Krishnapatnam Port and also got marked Ex.A.6 salary certificate issued by the Managing Director of the said Krishnapatnam Port. P.W.3 deposed that the deceased worked as Port Cleaner in their concern, from 16.04.2008 to 13.09.2009 on a monthly salary of Rs.6,750/-. But, he has further deposed that no V.G.Ghanta Marine Works, record was maintained in 7 VS,J MACMA 302 2010 Krishnapatnam Port regarding employment of deceased, and also payment of salary at Rs.6,750/- per month. In view of the said admission and in the absence of corroborating material supporting the salary particulars of the deceased, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A.6 salary certificate. However, having regard to the age of the deceased and taking into consideration minimum wages payable during the year 2009, earnings of deceased are notionaily taken at Rs.40,000/- per annum. 20) In the present case, as the deceased died at the age of 27 years, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal below has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum. Further, as the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 27 years, the Tribunal below rightly applied the multiplier as ‘17’ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in “Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. 21) Admittedly, in the present case, though the deceased was aged 27 years as on the date of the accident, nothing has been awarded towards future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for additional amount of 40% towards future prospects of the deceased as per the law laid down in Saria Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. (referred supra). After adding 40% (Rs.40,000 x 40% = 16,000/-) of the notional income towards future prospects, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.56,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 16000), out of which, 1/4**^ has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, then the actual annual income would come to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.56,000 - ' (2009) 6 see 121 8 VS,J MACMA_302_2019 14,000 (1/4*'' of 56,000), after applying multiplier ‘17’, it would come to Rs.7,14,000/- [Rs.42,000/- X 17]. Hence, the amount awarded towards loss of dependency is enhanced from Rs.5,10,000/- to Rs.7,14,000/-. 22) Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which need not be interfered with by this Court. In total, the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,44,000/- towards compensation. 23) In the present case, the claimants claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- only. 24) With regard to awarding compensation more than the claim amount claimed in the petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2,3 held as follows: Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others ''..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just" compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. 25) In "Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors. ^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation ' (2003) 2 see 274 ^2020 (04) see 413 9 VS,J MACMA_302 2019 and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded " 26) In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court need not restrict the compensation to the amount claimed in the petition and can award more compensation than the amount claimed in the claim petition, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 27) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Ps. Amounts now enhanced by this Court Rs. Ps. 1. Towards loss of 5,10,000-00 2,04,000-00 dependency 2. Towards funeral expenses 25,000-00 Towards loss of estate 3. 25,000-00 4. Towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 30,000-00 5 Towards loss of love and affection 50,000-00 Total Rs.6,40,000-00/- Rs.2,04,000-00 Amount of compensation now awarded is as follows: Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amount of compensation now enhanced : Rs.6,40,000/- : Rs.2,04,000/- Amount of compensation now awarded : Rs.8,44,000/- 10 VS,J MAGMA 302 2019 28) In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.8,44,000/- from Rs.6,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of additional court fee by the claimants within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 29) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. - SD/- A.VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Motor Accidents Claims, Tribunal, Nellore. 2. One CC to Sri. P. Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Sravan Kumar Mannava, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Two C.D Copies. SSL TAC 1 HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 JUDGMENT MA.CMA. NO. 302 OF 2019 ands;^ ?? 0\i i 0 I AU3 2025 m s. <o MAGMA IS ALLOWED