APHC010134652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 122/2022 Between: 1. KALIGIRI PRABHAVATHI, W/O KALIGIRI PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KISSAN NAGAR, NAWABPET, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT-524 002. 2. KALIGIRI MANOJ, S/O KALIGIRI PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 16 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KISSAN NAGAR, NAWABPET, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT-524 002. 3. KALIGIRI MADHAVAKRISHNA, S/O KALIGIRI PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 15 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KISSAN NAGAR, NAWABPET, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT-524 002. (APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS BEING REPT. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO.1) ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. P PRAVIN KUMAR, S/O PALLAPU PENCHALAIAH, HINDU, OWNER- CUM-DRIVER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO-AP 26 AY 5292, R/O. D.NO.25-7-144, 11TH STREET, C-BLOCK, VENGALARAO NAGAR, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HAVING DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT BRINDAVANAM, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J MACMA No.122 of 2022 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tothe Decree and Order dt. 17-07-2019 in MVOP No.498 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, at Nellore. 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 To condone the delay of 879 days in preferring the appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 17.07.2019 in OP. No. 498/2015 on the file of the Chairman, V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, at Nellore and pass. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RAMA KRISHNA 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.122 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The present civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.07.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, V Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District at Nellore, seeking enhancement of the compensation, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to the petitioners/claimants, as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Kaligiri Prasad in a motor accident that occurred on 27.06.2015. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) On 27.06.2015 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased along with his friend, one Pasupuleti Babu went to Venkaiah Swamy Temple situated at Dycus, Nellore for darshan. After darshan, both of them were talking while standing by the road side. At that time, one Valluru Suresh, a relative of the deceased, was proceeding on his motorcycle on that way and stopped his motorcycle on seeing the deceased and talking with the deceased. While they were talking, at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased, after giving due signals, crossed the road to attend the call of nature. At that time, the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP 26 AY 5292 i.e., the 1st respondent, drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and hit the 4 VS,J MACMA No.122 of 2022 deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injury over the back side of the head and became unconscious. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Head quarters hospital, Nellore and from there to Simhapuri Hospital, Nellore, where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 28.06.2015 at 5.30 p.m. b) The claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of the accident and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was working as a cutter in Alexander Saloon Shop, Trunk Road, Nellore, earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their affectionate family member as well as the earning member of the family, thereby lost the future prospects and income of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the rider of the motorcycle and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, being rider of the motorcycle, remained ex parte. 05. Respondent No.2/insurance company filed a counter denying the material averments of the claim petition and specifically denied the rash and negligence driving on the part of respondent No.1, as well as the age, avocation and earnings of deceased. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5 VS,J MACMA No.122 of 2022 06. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred on 27.06.2015 at 7.30 hours near Venkaiah Swamy temple, Dycus road, Nellore city, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP 26 AY 5292? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which respondents? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the claimants, the 1st claimant examined herself as PW1 and also examined the eye-witness as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 08. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and passed the following order: a) The petitioners are entitled for compensation to a tune of Rs.3,75,000/- apportioned as follows: i. 1st petitioner being the widow of the deceased is entitled to Rs.2,75,000/- ii. 2nd petitioner being the minor son of the deceased is entitled to Rs.50,000/- iii. 3rd petitioner being the minor son of the deceased is entitled to Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.3,75,000/- 6 VS,J MACMA No.122 of 2022 b) R.1 as owner is alone liable to pay the compensation. c) R.2 as Insurer is directed to deposit the said sum with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition (3.11.2015) till realization within 30 days from the date of award. d) On such deposit the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest thereon by filing an application. e) The shares of the minors 2nd petitioner and 3rd petitioner shall be invested in any Nationalized bank till the minor attains majority. After maturity there are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest by filing applications. f) That the guardian mother 1st petitioner is hereby permitted to withdraw interest accrued on the amount invested on the shares of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners from the bank directly for every half year for the welfare and benefit of the minor if she so desires; g)The second respondent is entitled to recover the said amount from the 1st respondent after paying it to the petitioners. h) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.” 09. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 10. The appellants contended that the deceased was a Barber and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month in spite of the same the Tribunal fixed the notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month and that the Tribunal failed to grant any compensation under the heads of future prospects, consortium, loss of estate and filial consortium. 7 VS,J MACMA No.122 of 2022 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, or requires enhancement in this appeal; if so, to what extent?” POINT: 13. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the absence of any challenge thereto, the said finding, which is well-founded on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, needs no interference. In view of the contentions raised in the present appeal, the only issue that requires consideration is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. With regard to issue No.2, though PW1, the wife of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was working in a barber shop and earning Rs.9,000/- per month during his lifetime. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was working as a Barber and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. As the dependents of the deceased were two in number, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the deceased would have contributed Rs.2,000/- per month to his family (Rs.3,000 – 8 VS,J MACMA No.122 of 2022 Rs.1,000). Accordingly, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family was taken as Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12) for the purpose of loss of dependency. Considering the age of the deceased as 39 years, the relevant multiplier applicable to the said age is „15‟, as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1. Accordingly, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 15). Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner. Thus, in total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. 15. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that though the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of 30% of the earnings of the deceased towards future prospects for the age group of 39 years, the Tribunal failed to award the same in terms of decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi 2 . Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to add 30% towards future prospects. Accordingly, the enhanced monthly contribution would be Rs.2,600/- (Rs.2,000 + 30%). Thus, the annual income comes to Rs.31,200/- (Rs.2,600/- X 12). Applying the multiplier of ‟15, the loss of future earnings comes to Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.31,200 X 15). Further, though the claimants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2017 ACJ 2700 9 VS,J MACMA No.122 of 2022 to grant an additional amount of Rs.55,000/-, thereby enhancing the total amount under conventional heads to Rs.70,000/-. 16. Thus, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts now awarded by this court are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of earnings + future prospects Rs.3,60,000/- Rs.4,68,000/- Amount under conventional heads Rs.15,000/- Rs.70,000/- Total Rs.3,75,000/- Rs.5,38,000/- 17. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 17.07.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.498 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, V Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District at Nellore, is hereby modified by enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimants from Rs.3,75,000/- to Rs.5,38,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 27.01.2026 KGR