1 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. APHC010425922022 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: 316/2022 Between: 1. MAGMA H D I GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY IT'S AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MAGMA HOUSE, 24 PART STREET, KOLKATA -700016. (POLICY BEARING NO.P0016300021/4192/102974 VALID FROM 03.12.2015 TO 02.12.2016) ...APPELLANT AND 1. PALAPARTHI SAMPOORNA, W/O LATE PERAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, 2. PALAPARTHI MARI DEVENAMMA, D/O LATE PERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. PALAPARTHI MARINELSON, D/O LATE MARINELSON. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE CHRISTIANS, RESIDENTS OF J. PANGULURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. KAMBAMPATI VEERABRAHNAM, S/O CHANDRA SEKHAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHANDALUR VILLAGE , J.PANGULURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT .(OWNER OF TRACTOR ANDTRAILOR BEARING NO.AP27TU 6694 .AND 6695) 2 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. 5. VADDAVALLI BRAHMANANDAM, S/O DASARADHARAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHANDALUR VILLAGE , J.PANGULURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT .(DRIVER OF TRACTOR ANDTRAILOR BEARING NO.AP27TU 6694 AND 6695) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO KAMARAJUGADDA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MARRI VENKATA RAMANA 2. V NITESH The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 316/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the 3rd Respondent – Insurance Company challenging the order/Award passed by the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District in M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2016 dated 21.02.2022, wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,58,400/- as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellant herein as 3rd respondent; and Respondents No.1 to 3 herein as Petitioners No.1 to 3 and Respondents No.4 and 5 herein as Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. This petitioners being mother and sisters of the deceased filed claim petition under section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of Palaparthi Marilillee in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.01.2016. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.291 of 2016 are that – on 05.01.2016 at about 08.30 A.M., the deceased/Marilillee boarded an auto bearing No.AP 27 TT 9117 at village and when the auto reached near Voora 4 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. Vagu of Chandaluru Village, a Tractor & Trailor bearing No.AP 27 TU 6694, driven by 2nd respondent in a rash or negligent manner and at high speed, without blowing horn, hit the auto in which the deceased was travelling, as a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries all over her body. Immediately, the injured was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole in 108 ambulance, however unfortunately while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 02.15 p.m. This incident was registered as a case in Cr.No.2 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in J.Panguluru Police Station, against the driver of the lorry i.e., 2nd respondent. The deceased was aged 23 years, hale and healthy and very active, intelligent and hard working girl. The deceased was studying Graduation. Besides attending the college, she used to do coolie work and earn Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to the petitioners for maintenance of the family as her father died long back. Due to the unfortunate accident, the 1st petitioner lost her loving daughter, who would have been immense help for the marriage of other daughters. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the petitioners. 5 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. 4. 1st respondent – owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement stating that the offending vehicle/ Tractor and Trailor bearing No.AP 27 TU 6694 & 6695 belong to this respondent and the same was insured with 3rd respondent - insurance company and the policy was in force by the date of accident, and in case if any compensation is payable, the 3rd respondent/ insurance company is liable for the same, the driver of the offending vehicle/ tractor and trailor holding valid driving license to drive that particular vehicle as on the date of accident and in fact, there is no negligence on his part in causation of the alleged accident and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The 2nd respondent/driver of offending vehicle reported no counter. 6. The 3rd respondent - insurance company filed written statement denying the averments of the petition and chiefly contended that, the alleged accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of auto only, who drove the auto in a rash or negligent manner and completely came towards wrong side and that the rough sketch of the scene of offence is in the middle of the road, in the opposite direction, which clearly shows that there was gross negligence on the part of the driver of the auto only, to cause the alleged accident and his negligence may be considered into at greater extent and if the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, the owner and insurer of said auto alone are liable to pay the same and that as the petitioners failed to implead the 6 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. owner and insurer of auto as proper and necessary parties, the petition is bad in law. That the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and subsisting driving license to drive such vehicle at the time of accident and that the vehicle was not road worthy to ply. The accident is not reported by the insured to the insurer in collusion with the petitioners, with a view to cause loss to this respondent. Further, the deceased was not doing any work and that she is a student and that the allegation that she was earning and contributing the income to the family, are all false allegations. Compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Basing on the above pleadings and on hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the deceased died on account of the injuries received in the accident caused due to rash or negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 27 TU 6694 & 6695 respectively by its driver or whether there was any negligence on the part of the driver of Auto bearing No.AP 27 TT 9117 in causing the accident as alleged by the respondent No.3? 2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., the owner and insurer of Auto bearing No.AP 27 TT 9117? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 4) To what relief the petitioners are entitled? 7 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. 8. During the course of trial, 1st petitioner got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 – certified copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.2 of 2016 of J.Panguluru police station, Ex.P.2 – certified copy of inquest report, Ex.P.3 – certified copy of rough sketch of the scene, Ex.P.4 – certified copy of M.V.I report, Ex.P.5 – certified copy of postmortem report, Ex.P.6 – certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.P.7 – attested copy of SSC marks memorandum, Ex.P.8 – attested copy of Intermediate certificate, Ex.P.9 – attested copy B.Com., marks sheet, Ex.P.10 - attested copy NSS Certificate, Ex.P.11 - attested copy of course completion certificate of data base and networking concepts issued by DEO, Ongole, dated 18.07.2007, Ex.P.12 – attested copy of training completion certificate in cutting and tailoring issued by Jam Shikhan Sansthan, Ongole, Ex.P.13 – attested copy of training completion certificate in leaf plate making issued by Jam Shikshan Sansthan, Ongole. On behalf of Respondents, 1st respondent – K.Veerabrahmam got examined as R.W.1, Respondent No.3 – insurance company got examined its Branch Manager – Abdul Raheem as R.W.2 and got marked Ex.B.1 – attested copy of policy and its terms and conditions, Ex.B.2 – photo copy of driving license of Respondent No.2. 9. Upon hearing both counsel, upon perusal the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the petition by awarding 8 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. compensation of Rs.10,58,400/- together with costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to deposit the compensation amount with interest and costs within three (03) months from the date of award/order. 10. Being aggrieved by the said Award/order, the 3rd Respondent – Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the ground that as per Ex.A.7 attested copy of SSC marks memo of the deceased the date of birth is 26.11.1989, as on the date of accident i.e., on 05.01.2016 and that the deceased was aged about 26 years, in spite of the said evidence, the tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 23 years and applied the multiplier 18 instead of 17 applicable to the age group of 26 years, that the awarded compensation amount of Rs.10,58,400/- is excessive and exorbitant. 11. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Respondents and perused the material in record. 12. Now the point for determination is:- Whether the Order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT: On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the 1st claimant, who is the mother of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and in her chief examination affidavit she stated about the 9 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. manner of accident as stated in the claim petition. Hence, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 – certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2016 of J.Panguluru Police Station, Ex.A.6 – copy of charge sheet, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.2, resulting the death of the deceased, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.2 resulting the death of the deceased. 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that as per Ex.A.7 – attested copy of SSC marks memo of the deceased the date of birth is 26.11.1989 and she was aged 26 years as on the date of accident, hence, multiplier 17 is applicable for the age group 26 – 30 years. 15. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that admittedly as per Ex.P.7 – SSC marks memo, the date of birth of deceased is 26.11.1989 and she is aged about 26 years as on the date of accident i.e., on 05.01.2016 and the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma’s case is ‘17’. The notional income of the deceased was fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month i.e., (Rs.7,000 x 12 =) Rs.84,000/- per annum. As per Judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 an addition of 40% of the established income should be added where the deceased was self employed and below the age of 40 years. Therefore, the annual income of the 10 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. deceased would come to (84,000 + 40% [33,600]=) Rs.1,17,600/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards her personal living expenses as per Sarla verma’s case, then the net income contributed by the deceased to her family would come to Rs.58,800/- per annum. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group 26 – 30 years, as per Sarla Verma and Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ant 2009 ACJ 1298 case is ‘17’. After applying multiplier ‘17’ the total loss of income to the family due to the death of the deceased would come to (58,800 x 17 =) Rs.9,99,600/-. As the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1, who is the mother of the deceased, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi1”, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.3,800/- towards loss of funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.10,58,400/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Palaparthi Marilillee. 16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts awarded by this Court, are as follows: 1 2018 ACJ 2782 11 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. Sl. No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Ps. Amounts now awarded by this Court in Rs. Ps. 1. Compensation towards loss of dependency 10,58,400-00 9,99,600-00 2. Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 - 40,000-00 3. Loss of estate - 15,000-00 4. Funeral Expenses - 3,800-00 Total 10,58,400-00 10,58,400-00 17. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 03.03.2026. 12 MACMA NO. 316 / 2022 VS,J. 249 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 316/2022 DATED 03.03.2026 KS