APHC010088062023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 780/2023 Between: 1 . THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THIRD PARTY CLAIM HUB, ZOOM, PLAZA, D.N0.54-14-4B, NEAR VINAYAK THEATRE, RING ROAD, ELURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001. ...APPELLANT AND 1 . UPPUTHALA UPPU RAMANA VENKATA RAMANA, W/O.KOTI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE. 2 . UPPUTHALA UPPU KOTI NARAYANA, S/O.KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 43 YEARS, PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED. (BOTH ARE R/O.GUDIPUDI, SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.) 3 . P KASPA RAJU, S/O.BALTHAJAR, R/O. PATIBANDLA VILLAGE PEDAKURPADU MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT (DRIVER OF THE LORRY NO. AP-07-TC-8399) 4 . KARLAPUDI RAMA KRISHNA, S/O.SUBBA RAO, SUPHALA HOMES, VIJAYAPURI COLONY, JKC COLLEGE ROAD, GUNTUR, (OWNER OF THE LORRY NO.AP-07-TC-8399) 5 . UPPUTHALA LAKSHMI TIRUPATAMMA, W/O.KOTI VARALU, R/O.NEAR BRAHMAMGARI TEMPLE, VENGALAYAPALEM, GUNTUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to may be allowed by setting-aside the order and decretal order 2 VS,J MACMA No.780 of 2023 dt.30.08.2022 in MVOP.NO.293/2017 on the file of Principal District Judge- Cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 381 days in filing the MACMA NO.780 of 2023 in the interest of justice and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 289 days in representing the MACMA No.780 of 2023 and pass such IA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings including execution of the award, dated 30.08.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.293 of 2017 on the file of Hon‟ble Principal District Judge-Cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur in the interest of justice and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to permit her to withdraw her share of compensation amount out of the amount deposited by the 1St respondent Insurance Company and to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: 1 . SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 . SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA 2 3 VS,J MACMA No.780 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The insurance company has preferred the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 30.08.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.293 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,94,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ninety Four thousand only) to the petitioners and the 4th respondent, though the claim petition was originally filed for Rs.5,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Koti Varalu, in a motor accident that occurred on 09.03.2013. 02. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: a) The petitioners are the parents and the 4th respondent is the wife of the deceased. b) On 09.03.2013 at about 07.30 P.M., the deceased, Koti Varalu, and others while proceeding on a motorcycle and when they reached near Perecherla Flyover, one lorry bearing No.AP 07 TC 8399, which was driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle. Due to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, where he was declared dead. 04. The claimants contended that the deceased, during his lifetime, was working as a mason and earning Rs.600/- per day, and being unmarried, the 4 VS,J MACMA No.780 of 2023 family lost both moral and financial support. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents. 05. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. 06. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed a counter denying all the allegations and contended that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider, as there were three persons on the motorcycle and they were proceeding on a wrong route, causing the accident. Hence, they denied liability. 07. The 4th respondent/wife of the deceased filed a statement claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and corroborating the manner of the accident. 08. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the pleaded accident dt. 09.03.2016 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle Viz Lorry bearing No.AP 07 TC 8399 by its driver 1st respondent and whether the deceased Upputhala Koti Varalu died due to said accident? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of respondents? and 3. To what relief? 09. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 (1st petitioner) and P.W.2 (eye- witness) were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. The 4th respondent examined herself as R.W.1. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.W.2 (A.O., Legal) was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 5 VS,J MACMA No.780 of 2023 10. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition with the following reliefs: “1. Petitioners and 4th respondent are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,94,000/-; 2. Petitioners and R4 are entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of the proper presentation of petition i.e., from 27.02.2017 to till the date of realization; 3. Out of total compensation, 4th respondent is entitled to take a sum of Rs.6,94,000/- with accrued interest thereon and 1/3rd of costs; 4. Out of total compensation, petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to take sum of Rs.3,00,000/-each with accrued interest thereon and 1/3rd of the costs each; 5. On deposit, petitioners and 4th respondent are entitled to withdraw their respective amounts. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally to petitioners and fourth respondent. 7. On such deposit, petitioners are entitled to withdraw their respective amounts; 8. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousands only); 9. Time granted for deposit of amount is 30 days from the date of award. 10. 4th respondent is directed to pay balance court fee on the excess amount awarded as per law.” 6 VS,J MACMA No.780 of 2023 11. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/insurance company preferred this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future prospects instead of 40% as the deceased was aged 24 years and not a permanent salaried employee. 12. Heard Mr.Samboju Bala Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsel for the 5th respondent herein. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 14. There is no dispute with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The present appeal is filed solely challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on the ground that the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal erred in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects as he is not a permanent salaried person. 15. As can be seen from the impugned award, admittedly the deceased was aged about 24 years on the date of the accident as corroborated by Ex.A4/postmortem certificate and was not a permanent salaried employee. In such circumstances, as per the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in 7 VS,J MACMA No.780 of 2023 National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, an addition of 40% of the income towards future prospects is warranted, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company. 16. Insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, the petitioners claimed that he was working as a mason and earning Rs.600/- per day; however, in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal, considering the nature of the occupation and the prevailing cost of living in the year 2016, fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day i.e., Rs.9,000/- per month. With regard to future prospects, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court is of the opinion that 40% should be added to the income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.12,600/- per month i.e., Rs.1,51,200/- per annum (Rs.12,600 X 12). As the deceased was unmarried, 50% is to be deduced towards personal expenses, accordingly, it comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.1,51,200 – 50%). As the age of the deceased was 24 years as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal, instead of applying the multiplier of „18‟ applicable to the said age group as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, has erroneously applied the multiplier of „17‟. In view of the above, the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier, which this Court finds requires modification. Therefore, after applying the relevant multiplier „18‟ for the age of 24 years, the loss of earnings, comes to Rs.13,60,800/-. 12017 ACJ 2700 22009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA No.780 of 2023 17. With regard to other heads of compensation, the Tribunal, following the decision in Pranaya Sethi, awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium in favour of petitioner No.1, who is the mother of the deceased and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is just and proper. However, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.2 who is the father of the deceased, though he is entitled for the same in view of the settled legal position. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- to petitioner No.2 towards consortium. Thus, the petitioners and respondent No.4 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,70,800/-. 16. Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal, in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of earnings Rs.12,24,000/- Rs.13,60,800/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.12,94,000/- Rs.14,70,800/- 9 VS,J MACMA No.780 of 2023 17. In the present case, the claimants claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but on considering facts and circumstances of the case, this Court came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.14,70,800/-. 18. With regard to awarding compensation more than the claim amount claimed in the petition, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others3 , held as follows: “…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.” 19. In “Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.4 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: “33. We are aware that he 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 and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded…..” 20. 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. 21. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,94,000/- to Rs.14,70,800/- 3 (2003) 2 SCC 274 4 2020 (04) SCC 413 10 VS,J MACMA No.780 of 2023 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. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 24.02.2026 KGR