APHC010032452019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 76/2019 Between: S Padma and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND K Govinda Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is preferred by the claimants aggrieved by order dated 10.09.2018 in MVOP No.455 of 2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The case of the claimants/appellants was that, on 13.02.2011, at about 8 pm the deceased-Savara Kurmayya (husband of the 1st petitioner, father of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and son of the 4th petitioner) boarded Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.AP.35/T 821 and AP.30T/1153 respectively, after loading wooden logs at Geddaguda Village, to unload the goods at Palakonda. The deceased, as a custodian of the goods boarded the Tractor and Trailer on the request of the respondent Nos.2 & 3. When the Tractor and Trailer reached near Guddimedaguda Village, Kadagandi-Sambam tar road, Seethampeta Mandal in Srikakulam District, the 1st respondent/driver of the Tractor and Trailer drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed, thereby, he could not control the vehicle, as a result the vehicle overturned across the road. In view of the accident, the wooden logs fell on the deceased and he died instantaneously. A case in Cr.No.10 of 2011 was registered against the 1st respondent on the file of Seethampeta Police Station. Later, said crime 3 was investigated into and charge sheet in C.C.No.66 of 2011 was filed on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda. 3. In view of the death of the deceased, the claimants approached the Tribunal seeking to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The said claim was resisted by the owner of the Tractor and Trailer, and the 4th respondent-Insurance Company. 4. Upon trial, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.5,74,000/-, by fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-, per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the claimants/appellants. 5. Hear Sri Aravala Rama Rao, counsel appearing for the appellants. Despite service of notices on respondents 1 & 4, there is no appearance. There is no appearance for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellants while not disputing with the income fixed by the Tribunal would contend that, while awarding compensation, the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the various conventional heads under which they are entitled to certain amounts as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble 4 Apex Court. In elaboration, he would contend that the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards consortium to dependents which is not sustainable under law. He would also submit that, as the deceased was below the age of 50 years, as on the date of the accident, therefore claimants are also entitled to receive compensation on the head of future prospects. Drawing the attention of this Court to the order under challenge, he seeks to allow the present appeal by awarding compensation as aforesaid. As can be seen from the record it is clear that, the Tribunal while awarding compensation had not granted the same under various conventional heads. Further, the constitutional courts have time and again, held that whenever a claim is made under beneficial legislation, the same must be dealt with the greatest circumspection, and to see that just compensation is paid to the victim/legal heirs of the deceased. 8. As rightly contended by the counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal, while awarding compensation, failed to take into consideration the other heads of under which the claimants are entitled to receive compensation. This Court finds sufficient force in the contention of the counsel for the appellants and accordingly, the compensation that is entitled to be paid to the petitioners is computed as under: 5 Description of the Head Amount Entitled in Rupees Net Annual Income Rs.3,500x12=Rs.42,000/- Future Prospects (at the age of 32 years) Rs.16,800/- (i.e., 40% of the Income) Total Income Rs.58,800/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4th) Rs.14,700/- Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.44,100/- Multiplier of 16 for the age 32 years Rs.7,05,600/- (44,100x16) Conventional Heads: (i)Loss of consortium (3 claimants) Rs.1,60,000/-(4x40,000) (ii)Loss of Estate (iii)Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.8,95,600/- 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, enhancing compensation from Rs.5,74,000/- to Rs.8,95,600/-, together with interest at the rate of 9%, from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of realization. Further, the 4th respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest, within a period of two (02) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6 10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.18.09.2026 DSB 7 109 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.76 of 2019 Date 18.09.2026 U DSB