APHC010223772022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 198/2022 Between: 1. P. NAGAMANI, W/O PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDENT OF D.NO.13-93, KOTHURU, NEAR NEW BUSTAND KAMAVARAPUKOTA, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. PINGULA BALU, S/O PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 13 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDENT OF D.NO.13-93, KOTHURU, NEAR NEW BUSTAND KAMAVARAPUKOTA, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. BEING MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN) 3. PINGULA NAGAMANI, S/O PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 11 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDENT OF D.NO.13-93, KOTHURU, NEAR NEW BUSTAND KAMAVARAPUKOTA, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. BEING MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN) 4. PINGULA YOSABU, , S/O SARAVAISH, HINDU, AGED 66 YEARS, DEPENDANT, RESIDENT OF D.NO.13-93, KOTHURU, NEAR NEW BUSTAND KAMAVARAPUKOTA, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. PINGULA RAGHAVAMMA, W/O YOSABU, HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, DEPENDANT, RESIDENT OF D.NO.13-93, KOTHURU, NEAR NEW BUSTAND KAMAVARAPUKOTA, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. G SIVA KRISHNA, S/O KOTESWARA RAO, MALE, AGED 27 YEARS, DRIVER CUM OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. AP 07 BK 0363, R/OD.NO.3-16/2, GUNDIMEDA, TADEPALLI GUNTUR DIST. 2 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 2. M/S ICICI LAMBORD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, BANDAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA , KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomemorandum of appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.196 of 2017, dated 25.11.2021, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Ist Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. B V KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25.11.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.196 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,72,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs Seventy two thousand only) as against the claim of Rs.35,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Pingula Prasad, in a motor accident that occurred on 10.11.2016. 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 10.11.2016 at about 6.00 a.m., the deceased started from his house at Kamavarapukota and proceeded to Vijayawada to prove driving assistance to his acquaintance by name Rambabu, for the purpose of purchasing new clothes for the marriage of the Rambabu‟s daughter and that at about 10.30 a.m., while the deceased was standing on the roadside waiting to cross the road, the 1st respondent, rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 BK 0363, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules and without blowing horn, came and hit the deceased drastically. As a result, the deceased fell on the road and sustained grievous multiple injuries including a severe head injury. He was immediately shifted to 4 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, where he succumbed to injures on 15.11.2016 while undergoing treatment. A case in Crime No.611 of 2016 under Section 304-A IPC was registered by the SHO, Machanvaram Police Station. b) It is the further case of the petitioners that the deceased was working as a Supervisor-cum-Driver in St.Mary English Medium School, Kamavarapukota, earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The 1st petitioner is the widow, petitioners 2 and 3 are minor children and petitioners 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. The deceased, aged about 42 years, was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was the sole breadwinner of the family. Due to his sudden death, the petitioners lost his love, affection and financial support. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/rider-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. 05. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter denying the manner of the accident, age, occupation, and income of the deceased. It was contended that the rider did not possess a valid driving licence and that the deceased himself was negligent in suddenly crossing the road. The insurer also disputed the policy coverage and liability. 06. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 5 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 “1. Whether the pleaded accident, dated 10.11.2016 at about 10.30 A.M., was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 07 BK 0363 (Crime Vehicle) by the 1st respondent and whether the Pingula Prasad (deceased) died in the said accident? 2. Whether the crime vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent as on the date of the accident? 3. Whether there was any violations of conditions of Policy? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of respondents? 5. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition is as follows: “In the result, petition is allowed with proportionate costs in favour of the petitioners against the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 by awarding compensation amount of Rs.13,72,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs seventy two thousand only) to the petitioners 1 to 5 with interest @ 8% per annum with following apportionment from the date of filing of this petition till the date of realization. (a). The Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the petitioners No.1 to 5, as awarded and as apportioned. (b) The 2nd Respondent being the Insurer is directed to deposit the said compensation amount within one month before this Tribunal 6 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 from the date of this Order. In the event of failure of deposit, the petitioners Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to get the compensation amount by proceeding in accordance with law. (c) The 1st petitioner being the wife of deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,72,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and seventy two thousand only) with accrued interest on the compensation amount of Rs.13,72,000/- and total costs and the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) on such deposit and the remaining amount shall be kept in F.D.R., in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. (d) The Petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) each as the compensation amount awarded to the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and it shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till the attainment of majority by the petitioners. However the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest amount once in a year and such interest amount shall be utilized to meet the needs of the minor petitioners. (e) The 4th and 5th petitioners are entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty five thousand only) each and they are permitted to withdraw the same on deposit of the compensation amount. (f) The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.14,000/-. (g) The decree will be supplied to the petitioners, after verification by Office as to payment of Court Fee and exemption if any, sought at the time of filing of this case and on clearance of Court Fee dues, if any. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed contending that, in the absence of any documentary evidence to establish that the 7 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 deceased was working as a Driver-cum-Supervisor in St. Mary English Medium School, Kamavarapukota and earning Rs.18,000/- per month, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month by merely considering the prevailing circumstances and treating him as an ordinary driver. It is further contended that, though the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of 41–45 years is „15‟, the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier „14‟. It is also contended that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards consortium only to the 1st appellant, without awarding any consortium to the other appellants, who are the children and parents of the deceased, and who are also entitled to the same. Therefore, the appellants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurance company has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Heard Mr.B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Gudi Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 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?” 8 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 POINT: 13. There is no dispute with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider 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 petitioners, 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. Insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, though P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month as a Supervisor-cum-Driver, no documentary evidence was filed to substantiate the same. In such circumstances, the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.8,000/- per month considering the nature of work and the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2016. The said assessment appears to be reasonable and warrants no interference. Further, considering the age of the deceased, i.e., 45 years and following the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, the Tribunal has added 25% to the annual income of the deceased towards future prospects, thereby, his total income together with future prospects was rightly calculated at Rs.10,000/- (Rs.8,000/- + 25%). Thereafter, the Tribunal, following the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, and considering that there are five dependents in the present case, upon deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his 9 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 personal expenses, has rightly calculated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.7,500/- per month (Rs.10,000 – Rs.2,500). 15. Now, coming to the point of multiplier, it can be observed that, as per Ex.A2/inquest report and Ex.A3/postmortem report, the age of the deceased was 42 years. However, the Tribunal relied upon the age mentioned in Ex.A1/FIR, which is only a First Information Report given to the police immediately after the accident and cannot be relied upon for determining the age of the deceased. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 41 to 45 years is “15”, as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (referred supra). However, the Tribunal, erred in applying the multiplier „14‟ instead of „15‟. In view of the settled legal position, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased, i.e., 42 years, as recorded in Exs.A2/inquest and A3/postmortem certificate, is „15‟. Therefore, by applying the said multiplier, the loss of dependency is recalculated at Rs.13,50,000/- (Rs.7,500 × 15 × 12). 16. With regard to loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded Rs.44,000/- to the 1st petitioner alone. However, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards love and affection to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the minor children, and towards loss of filial consortium to petitioner Nos.4 and 5, who are the parents of the deceased, though they are entitled for the same. In view of the settled legal position, this Court deems it appropriate to award 10 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 Rs.40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 to 5 under the head of „love and affection‟ and „loss of filial consortium‟ i.e., totaling Rs.1,,60,000/-. 17. The amount awarded under the conventional heads, i.e., Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, which are found to be just and proper. 18. 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 dependency Rs.12,60,000/- Rs.13,50,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- Loss of consortium Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- Loss of filial consortium -- Rs.80,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Loss of Love and Affection towards children Rs.15,000/- Rs.80,000/- Transportation Charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.13,72,000/- Rs.16,07,000 /- 11 VS,J MACMA No.198 of 2022 19. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the order dated 25.11.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.196 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, is hereby modified by enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellants/petitioners from Rs.13,72,000/- to Rs.16,07,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The apportionment, mode of deposit, and withdrawal shall remain as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 03.03.2026 KGR