APHC010101532022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 104/2022 Between: 1. SIVVAPU BHAVANI, W/O. PARVATEESAM, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR 2. SIVVAPU YUGANDHAR,, S/O. PARVATEESAM, AGED 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT (BEING MINOR REP. BY 1 PETITIONER) 3. SIVVAPU BHAGYA LAKSHMI,, D/O. PARVATEESAM, AGED 15 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT (BEING MINOR REP. BY 1 PETITIONER) ALL ARE R/O. D.NO. 3-458, RAVINDRA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. MAMIDI CHINNA RAO, S/O. LATE YERRAIAH, AGED. 26, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KANIMERAKA VILLAGE, BONDAPALLI MANDALAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, D.NO. 43-18-17, GUDEM PLAZA, SIVA SANKAR MOTORS (HERO HONDA LANE), NEW COLONY, VENKATRAJU NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal aggrieved by the order dt. 04-12-2019, passed in M.O.P. No. 597 of 2017 on the file of the MACT- cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge. Visakhapatnam 2 VS,J MACMA.No.104 of 2022 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. ABHISHEK NAIDU AKKENA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.104 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P. No. 597 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,81,250/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty-One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) to the petitioners herein as against their claim of Rs.30,74,500/-, on account of the death of Sivvapu Parvateesam. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: On 05.03.2017 at about 07:45 a.m., while the deceased, along with one K. Venkatesh, was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 35 L 5511 to Bobbili for laying a foundation stone, and when they crossed Latchayyapeta village on SH-36 road, respondent No.1, being the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased and the co-passenger fell on the road, and the deceased sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Bobbili, where he 4 VS,J MACMA.No.104 of 2022 succumbed to the injuries. Prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a mason (mastry) in building construction and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as on the date of the accident. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the material allegations of the petition and specifically contended that respondent No.1, who was the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It was further contended that the offending vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2 at the time of the accident, and therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 also contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant, excessive, and exaggerated. It was further submitted that the interest, if any, awarded shall be in accordance with current banking regulations and not as claimed by the petitioners. It was further contended that the deceased himself drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic, and dashed against the offending vehicle. Therefore, respondent No.2 prayed that the petition be dismissed. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 5 VS,J MACMA.No.104 of 2022 “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of (sic driver of ) auto bearing no.AP 35 Y0424? 2. Whether the deceased Sivvapu Parvatheesam @ Shiva died in the road (sic motor vehicle) accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount, and against whom? 4. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.B1 to B3 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. 8. After hearing both parties and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against the respondents, awarding compensation of Rs.5,81,250/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty-One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) with interest at 7% per annum along with proportionate costs. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of the award. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to properly fix contributory negligence between the deceased and the driver of the auto, and ought to have apportioned it equally. It is further contended that the Tribunal 6 VS,J MACMA.No.104 of 2022 failed to consider the documents relied upon by the appellants and erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also contended that the compensation awarded is inadequate, as the appellants are suffering due to the death of the deceased. Hence, they prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1, the claimants relied upon the evidence of PW2 (eye-witness) and documentary evidence marked as Exs.P1 to P9. PW2, the pillion rider of the motorcycle of the deceased, deposed that the offending vehicle came suddenly in a rash and negligent manner, and they could not avert the accident. He was also examined by the Investigating Officer as an eye-witness to the accident and was cited as LW2 in the charge sheet. 7 VS,J MACMA.No.104 of 2022 13. As per the version of PW2, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. In the absence of more detailed evidence regarding the manner of the accident and non- examination of independent eye-witnesses cited as LWs.3 and 4, the evidence of PW2 can be treated as sufficient to conclude that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the auto. The Tribunal ought to have held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1, and that the petitioners are entitled to 100% of the compensation. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was stated to be working as a mason and earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- as on the date of the accident. However, in the absence of documentary proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, considering that he was a skilled worker. Accordingly, the annual income was taken as Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12). As the age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier ‘15’ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd 1 . Further, future prospects for a self- employed person below the age of 40 years are to be calculated at 40% 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA.No.104 of 2022 of the annual income. Thus, the addition towards future prospects comes to Rs.28,800/- (Rs.72,000/- x 40%), and the total annual income becomes Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.72,000/- + Rs.28,800/-). After deducting one-third of the income towards personal expenses(Rs.1,00,800/- ÷3 = Rs.33,600/-), the annual contribution to the family is Rs.67,200/- (Rs.1,00,800/- – Rs.33,600/-). Applying the multiplier ‘15’, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,08,000/- (Rs.67,200/- x 15). 15. In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.80,000/- towards loss of love and affection to petitioners 2 and 3, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation, and Rs.2,500/- towards damages to clothes and articles. 16. Thus, the total compensation payable comes to Rs.11,62,500/- (Rs.10,08,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.80,000/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.2,500/-). However, the Tribunal awarded only 50% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.5,81,250/-, to the claimants. In view of the above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation from Rs.5,81,250/- to Rs.11,62,500/-. 9 VS,J MACMA.No.104 of 2022 Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount now awarded 1 Loss of earnings Rs.5,04,000/- Rs.10,08,000/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs.20,000/- Rs.40,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.7,500/- Rs.15,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs.7,500/- Rs.15,000/- 5 Loss of love and affection Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/- 6 Transportation Rs.1,000/- Rs.2,000/- 7 Damages to clothes and articles Rs.1,250/- Rs.2,500/- Total: Rs.5,81,250/- Rs.11,62,500/- 17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,81,250/- to Rs.11,62,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred only), with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment or realization before the Tribunal, with joint and several liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 10.02.2026 PBS