APHC010209702022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 420/2022 Between: 1. MUVVALA VENKATA LAKSHMI, (WIFE OF DECEASED) W/O LATE YANADI RAO, HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O DOOR NO. 8-17-31, MASQUE ROAD BALAJI RAO PET, TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. MUVVALA TARUN VENKATA NAGA KRISHNA KUMAR, (SON OF DECEASED) S/O LATE YANADI RAO, STUDENT, AGED ABOUT 26 YEAR DOOR NO. 8-17-31, MASQUE ROAD BALAJI RAO PET, TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. MUVVALA SRI VANI KAMALA, (DAUGHTER OF DECEASED) D/O LATE YANADI RAO, STUDENT, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ALL ARE R/O DOOR NO. 8-17-31, MASQUE ROAD BALAJI RAO PET, TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. GARJUDA JAYA LAKSHMI, W/O RAMBABU AGED MAJOR, OWNER OF QUALIS CAR BEARING NO. AP 27V 5350 R/O DOOR NO. 7-13- 11/2, NUZVEEDU TOWN, ELURU DISTRICT 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER 15TH LANE, ARUNDELPET, GUNTUR 3. MD KHADAR VALI, S/O ISALEH MOHIDDIN AGED MAJOR, DRIVER OF QUALIS CAR BEARING NO. AP 27V 5350 R/O DOOR NO. 9-95- 92/43, 13 WARD, REPALLE TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J MACMA.No.420 of 2022 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to set-a-side the Judgment and Decree Dt. 11-05-2017 on the file of CHAIRMAN Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal CUM XI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, Tenali, in IV1.V.O.P. No. 30 of 2015 by allowing the MACMA, and to pass 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 1671 days in preferring the MACMA against judgment and decree dt 11-05-2019-7 on the file of CHAIRMAN Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal CUM XI ADDL . DIST JUDGE , Tenali in MVOP No 30 of 2015 and to pass IA NO: 2 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 143 days in representing the MACMA SR No 16958/2022 and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.420 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,01,500/-(Rupees Two Lakhs one thousand and five hundred only) to the petitioners herein as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, on account of the death of Yanadi Rao. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: On 20.03.2014 at about 11.23am, while the deceased was travelling on his motor cycle from Tenali to Guntur Collector office and when he reached near Chillies powder mill on Guntur, Tenali R & B main road between Narakoduru and Budampadu villages, one Qualis Car bearing No.AP 27 V 5350 coming from behind and the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic, without blowing horn and hit the deceased from behind back and the deceased fell down on the road and he received head injury immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tenali and from there to NRI 4 VS,J MACMA.No.420 of 2022 Hospital, Chinakakani, while undergoing treatment he died on 26.03.2014. Prior to the accident the deceased was running MEE SEVA, Photostat & DTP center and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month as on the date of accident. 4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 & 3 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying certain allegations of the petition and specifically contended that until it is proved that the vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident insured with the 2nd respondent company at the time of accident, the 2nd respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Qualis Car and the driver of the Qualis Car has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e., the owner and insurer of the motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling at the time of accident. Therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of 3rd respondent while driving the vehicle of 1st respondent? 5 VS,J MACMA.No.420 of 2022 2. Whether the accident is the result of negligence contributed by the deceased? If so, whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e., insured and insurer of the motor cycle? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the amount of compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the petitioners, 1st petitioner was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of 2nd respondent, RW1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondents, awarding compensation of Rs.2,01,500/- (Rupees Two lakhs one thousand and five hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the M.V.O.P No.30 of 2015 against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 instead of awarding the compensation jointly and severally against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and failed to fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- instead of fixing Rs.3,000/- and the Tribunal ought to have awarded a 6 VS,J MACMA.No.420 of 2022 sum of Rs.8,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,01,500/- by allowing the said M.V.O.P. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 herein have supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. In the case on hand, the petitioners got the petition amended from Section 166 of the M.V. Act (fault liability) to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act (no-fault liability). Hence, the petitioners are not required to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Therefore, the question as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 does not arise for consideration. 13. However, in support of their contention, the claimants relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence marked as Exs. A1 to A5. 14. In view of the fact that the petitioners failed to produce a valid and subsisting policy in the name of G. Jaya Lakshmi insured with United 7 VS,J MACMA.No.420 of 2022 India Insurance Company, contrary to the contents of Ex. A5 wherein the Insurance Company is mentioned as Oriental Insurance Company, the Tribunal held that it was not necessary to decide the issue of contributory negligence as pleaded by respondent No. 2, since respondent No. 2 was not the insurer of the vehicle bearing No. AP 27V 5350 as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held respondent No. 3 alone liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners, having amended the petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act (no-fault liability), contended that the deceased was earning Rs.3,300/- per month as on the date of the accident. However, no documentary evidence was produced in support thereof. Hence, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, treating him as an unskilled labourer. As the deceased was aged 58 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of ‘8’ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd1. After deducting one-third (1/3rd) of the income (Rs.3,000/- ÷ 1/3 = Rs.1,000/-) towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the family would be Rs.2,000/- (Rs.3,000/- – Rs.1,000/-), and the annual contribution would be 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA.No.420 of 2022 Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/- × 12). Applying the multiplier of ‘8’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.24,000/- × 8). In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to PW1, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.2,000/- towards general damages and expenses, totaling Rs.2,01,500/-. 16. However, the Tribunal failed to properly consider the amount to be awarded under the head of loss of consortium, as it granted only Rs.5,000/- to PW1 instead of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent. As there are three dependents, they are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- × 3) under this head. Accordingly, the total compensation is recalculated at Rs.3,16,500/- (Rs.1,92,000/- + Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.2,000/-). 17. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount now awarded 1 Loss of dependency Rs.1,92,000/- Rs.1,92,000/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.2,500/- Rs.2,500/- 4 General damages and expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- Total: Rs.2,01,500/- Rs.3,16,500/- 9 VS,J MACMA.No.420 of 2022 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,01,500/- to Rs.3,16,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred only), with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No. 3 is directed to pay 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: 09.02.2026 PBS