APHC010585232022 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: 455/2022 Between: 1. VELAGA BALAIAH, S/O. RANGA RAO, NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION. AGRICULTURIST CUM- AGRICULTURAL COOLIE KOLANUKNDA VILLAGE,TADEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, MANGALAGIRI JCJ ...APPELLANT AND 1. KARIMIKONDA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, (OWNER OF THE LORRY AP 16 TV 0909) D.NO. 61/13/6, NAGENDRA NAGAR, RAMALINGESWARA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA JCJ 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 15TH LINE, ARUNDELPET, GUNTUR POLICY NO. 1507003111P001712343 VALID FROM 31-12-2022 TO 30-12-2012 (INSURER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO. AP 16 TV 0909) 3. KALYANAM PULLA RAO, S/O. KOTESWARA ARAO, NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, (LORRY DRIVER) KALYANAM BAZAR, NANDIVELUGU VILLAGE, DUGGIRALA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY AS NO CLAIM IS MADE AGAINST HIM IN THE APPEAL) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of 2 VS,J MACMA.No.455 of 2022 M.V.Act aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.O.P.161 of 2015 on the file of on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Guntur dated 5-12-2016 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 2055 days in filing this MACMA against the judgment and award in MVOP No. 161/2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Guntur dated 5-12- 2016 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V DURGA 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.455 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,27,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs twenty seven thousand only) to the petitioner herein as against the claim of Rs.8,25,000/-, on account of the death of Velaga Venkata Ramana. 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 07.09.2012 at about 10.30am, while the petitioner and his wife who is the deceased in this case, were crossing the road on TVS XL AP 16 G 2189 near Royal Form, Kolanukonda Cross Road, Tadepalli Mandal, the driver/3rd respondent of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 0909 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the TVS XL on which they were going, as a result they sustained severe injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. Prior to the accident the deceased was an agriculturist-cum-agricultural coolie and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as on the date of accident. 4 VS,J MACMA.No.455 of 2022 4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed their written statements denying certain allegations of the petition and specifically contended that the 1st respondent being well aware of the fact that the driver has no valid and effective license entrusted the vehicle. The claim amount is excessive and exorbitant and in view of the decrease of bank interest rates on fixed deposits etc., the rate of interest shall not exceed 6% p.a. on the award amount. Therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether there is negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle? 2. Whether the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased herself? 3. Whether the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler? 4. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Neither the respondents got examined any person on their behalf nor got marked any document on their behalf. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim 5 VS,J MACMA.No.455 of 2022 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 entire compensation amount within one month from the date of the award. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.3,000/- and in addition of 25% actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects and not making respondent Nos.1 & 2 made liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance company herein has 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? 6 VS,J MACMA.No.455 of 2022 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. 3, the claimants relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 (eye-witness) and documentary evidence marked as Exs. A1 to A7. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence, i.e., Exs. A1 to A7, which remained unrebutted and unchallenged, held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 3, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to them instantaneously. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle warrants no interference. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as the deceased was a housewife at the time of the accident, the Tribunal assessed the value of her services to the family at Rs.3,000/- per month, following the ratio laid down in 2000 ACJ 1735 (SC), which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum (Rs.3,000/- × 12). As the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of ‘14’ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla 7 VS,J MACMA.No.455 of 2022 Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd1. However, the Tribunal deducted half of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased though he is married instead of deducting one-third (1/3rd) towards his personal and living expenses. 14. By deducting one-third of the annual income (1/3 of Rs.36,000/- = Rs.12,000/-) towards personal expenses, the actual annual contribution of the deceased to her family would be Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- – Rs.12,000/-). The future prospects for a person in the age group of 40 to 50 years can be calculated at 25% of the annual income, which comes to Rs.6,000/- (Rs.24,000/- × 25%). Adding the same, the total annual contribution would be Rs.30,000/- (Rs.24,000/- + Rs.6,000/-). Applying the multiplier of ‘14’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs.30,000/- × 14). In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,95,000/- (Rs.4,20,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.25,000/-). 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,27,000/- to Rs.4,95,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand only), with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA.No.455 of 2022 jointly and severally liable 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