APHC010637382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 528 AND 554 OF 2022 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 528 OF 2022 Between: 1. KAMMILA NAGARAJU, SON OF (LATE) RAGHAVA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, KATTULAVANI PALEM, H/O KANKATAVA, GUDURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. KAMMILA VASANTHA RAO, - SON OF (LATE) RAGHAVA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, KATTULAVANI PALEM, H/O KANKATAVA, GUDURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. JONNAKUTI BHAVANI, -WIFE OF SAMBASIVA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, HOUSE-WIFE, ATMAKURU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. DASARI VENKATA SWAMY, -SON OF SATYA RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, DRIVER OF TATA MAGIC A.P. 16TV 7829, RESIDENT OF CHINA RAVIRALA VILLAGE, NUZVID MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, NUZVID JCJC. 2. DAMMALAPATI SUJATHA, -WIFE OF KOTILINGAM, HINDU, OWNER OF TATA MAGIC AP 16TV 7829, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 7-290-, KUMAR PUBLIC SCHOOL, JANGALA PET, NUZVID, NUZVID 2 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, NUZVID JCJ. 3. M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, MG ROAD, LABBI PET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High CourtAggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 12-0022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 11 op018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District udge court, Krishna, Machilipatnam 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 pleased to condone the delay of 30 days caused in filing the Appeal 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 pleased to enhance the compensation amount to Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from Rs. 6,00,000/-, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SURI BABU PUPPALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A JAYANTHI 2. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 554/2022 Between: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, M.G.ROAD, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT 3 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 AND 1. KAMMILA NAGARAJU, S/O. (LATE) RAGHAVA RAO, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O.KATTIUNIVANIPALEM H/O. KANKATAVA, GUDURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. KAMMILA VASANTHA RAO, S/O. (LATE) RAGHAVA RAO, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O.KATTIUNIVANIPALEM H/O. KANKATAVA, GUDURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. JONNAKUTI BHAVANI, W/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, HINDU, AGED 27 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. ATMAKURU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. DASARI VENKATA SWAMY, S/O.SATYA RAJU, HINDU, AGED 25 YEARS, DRIVER OF TATA MAGIC BEARING NO.AP-16-TV-7829, R/O. CHINA RAVICHERLA VILLAGE, NUVID MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. DAMMALAPATI SUJATHA, W/O. KOTILINGAM HINDU, AGED NOT KNOWN, OWNER OF TATA MAGIC BEARING NO.AP-16-TV-7829, R/O. D.NO.7-209-3, KUMAR PUBLIC SCHOOL, JANGALAPET, NUVID, NUVID MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the Decree and Judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed in MVOP No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-I Additional District Judge Krishna, Machilipatnam and dismiss the MVOP No.11 of 2018 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/ Claim Petitioners against the Appellant herein / Respondent No.3 in the lower court and 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 pleased to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the above appeal against the proceedings dated 12.07.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No,11 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-1 Additional District Judge Krishna, Machilipatnam and pass 4 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings dated 12.07.2022 passed in M.V.O P.No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-I Additional District Judge Krishna, Machilipatnam including execution proceedings and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 Pleased to vacate the Interim Stay Orders passed in IA No. 2 of 2022 in MACMA No. 554 of 2022 dated 23-12-2022 and permit the petitioners to withdraw the amounts which were deposited by the Appellant - Insurance company as per the ratio decided by the Lower Tribunal perusing the above Interim Order, in the interests of justice and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SURI BABU PUPPALA The Court made the following: 5 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of them by way of this common order. 2. M.A.C.M.A. No.528 of 2022 is filed by the claimants and M.A.C.M.A. No.554 of 2022 is filed by the insurance company, challenging the order and decree dated 12.07.2022passed in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District, Krishna, Machilipatnam, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,68,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Eight thousand only) to the claimants, on account of the death of one Kammila Kasirathnamin a motor accident that occurred on 10.06.2016. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: a) On 10.06.2016 at about 8:00 p.m., after purchasing medicines from Ramarao Medical Shop, the deceased was standing on the margin of Nuzvid Road at Bodapadu Village, H/o Nunna Village, intending to cross the road. At that time, the 1st respondent, driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from Vijayawada towards Nuzvid, while attempting to overtake another vehicle, he came to the extreme right side and dashed against the deceased. As a result, she fell on the road, sustained head 6 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 injuries, and died on the spot. Based on a complaint, a case in Crime No.194 of 2016 was registered under Section 304-A IPC. b) The claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 52 years, working as an agricultural coolie and also selling milk, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents. 5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte. 6. Respondent No.1 (driver) filed a counter contending that the claimants must prove the avocation, income, and their relationship with the deceased. It was further contended that he possessed a valid driving licence and that the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy issued by respondent No.3; hence, liability, if any, lies with the insurer. 7. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed a counter denying rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. It was contended that the claimants had already received compensation under “Chandranna Bheema Pathakam” and are not entitled to further compensation. It was also contended that the claimants are not dependents and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. 8. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 7 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 “1. Whether there is rash and negligent driving on the part of 1st respondent driver of TATA Magic Van bearing Regd. No.AP 16 TV 7829 in this accident resulting death of Kammela Kasiratnam? 2. Whether the driver of affending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent? And from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief?” 9. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Exs.B1 to B3 were marked during cross-examination. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.X1 to X3 and Ex.B4 were marked. 10. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded as follows: “a) An amount of Rs.4,68,000/- and interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of realization towards compensation is awarded to the petitioners herein. b) Petitioners shall pay requisite court-fee on the said amount of Rs.4,68,000/- before getting copy of Award. c) Third respondent is directed to deposit the same within 45 days from the date of this judgment, to the credit of this matter and recover the same from the 2nd respondent herein without filing any separate suit against her. d) Said amount of Rs.4,68,000/- with costs and interest thereon is apportioned equally among the petitioners herein. e) After deposit of the amount, all the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective amounts. f) Fee of the Advocate for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.7,500/-. 8 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 11. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.528 of 2022 contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the age of the deceased as reflected in the inquest report and postmortem report, wherein her age was mentioned as 52 years as on the date of the accident, and instead erroneously relied upon the Aadhaar Card. According to the claimants, the Aadhaar Card does not disclose the date of birth and only mentions the age, which was wrongly taken as above 65 years under Ex.B3. Consequently, the Tribunal applied an incorrect multiplier of „5‟, whereas, as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 51 to 55 years is „11‟. Therefore, the application of multiplier „5‟ by the Tribunal is erroneous. 12. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.554 of 2022 contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month in the absence of any cogent proof or evidence. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that the claimants, being major sons and a married daughter, were not dependent on the income of the deceased and, therefore, erred in awarding compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The Insurance Company also contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was aged about 68 years at the time of the accident and had no dependents, and that she was, in fact, dependent on her children. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the fact that the driver 9 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, which was duly established by examining R.W.1 and R.W.2 on behalf of the Insurance Company. 13. During pendency of these appeals, the appellants/claimants preferred I.A.No.2 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2022 seeking amendment of claim petition by enhancing the claim amount to Rs.10,00,000/- from Rs.6,00,000/- with consequential permission to pay the additional court fee, on the ground that he was advised that he is entitled to more compensation than what has been claimed. Considering the same, the said application has been allowed, permitting the amendment sought for in respect of the claim amount and directing the petitioners to pay the additional court fee. 14. Heard Mr.Suribabu Uppala, learned counsel for the claimants and Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. 15. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 16. There is no dispute with 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 claimants, needs no interference. In view of the contentions raised in the 10 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 present appeals, the only issue that requires consideration is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, though the claimants contended that the deceased was working as an agricultural coolie and was also engaged in selling milk, earning Rs.10,000/- per month, in the absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate the same, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day, i.e., Rs.9,000/- per month. This Court is of the considered opinion that, in the absence of proof of such income, the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the minimum wages applicable for the year 2016. If the same is considered, the minimum wage payable to a coolie during the said period would be Rs.256/- per day, i.e., Rs.7,680/- per month. Further, as there are three dependants in the present case, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1; however, it erroneously deducted 2/3rd. This Court, upon deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.5,120/- (Rs.7,680 - Rs.2,560). On a perusal of the impugned award, it is also evident, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, that the Tribunal erred in relying upon Ex.B3/Aadhaar Card for determining the age of the deceased as 68 years, instead of considering Ex.A2/Inquest Report and Ex.A3/Postmortem Report, which clearly indicate that the age of the deceased at the time of the 1 2017 ACJ 2700 11 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 accident was 52 years and erroneously applied the multiplier of „5‟ instead of „11‟. Therefore, by applying the appropriate multiplier of „11‟ applicable to the age group of 51 to 55 years, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,75,840/- (Rs.5,120 × 12 × 11). 18. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court inNational Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, the claimants were awarded Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, are found to be just and reasonable, and hence do not warrant any interference by this Court. 19. 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.3,60,000/- Rs.6,75,840/- Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- Loss of love and affection Rs.75,000/- Rs.75,000/- Total Rs.4,68,000/- Rs.7,83,840/- 20. So far as the liability to pay compensation is concerned, it is evident from Ex.B4 (policy certificate) that the offending motor vehicle was validly insured with respondent No.3/Insurer and that the policy was in force as on 12 VS,J MACMA Nos.528 & 554 of 2022 the date of the accident. Though it was contended by the respondent No.3/Insurer that the rider of the motor vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy, the said contention was sought to be established by examining the officials from the R.T.A. office. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from respondent No.2/owner, without filing any separate suit against her. 21. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.528 of 2022 is partly allowed and the order dated 12.07.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge‟s Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam, is hereby modified by enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants from Rs.4,68,000/- to Rs.7,83,840/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. It is made clear that the appellants/claimants shall pay the additional court fee, as directed while allowing the amendment petition, before drafting the decree. 22. The M.A.C.M.A.No.554 of 2022, preferred by the insurance company, is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.03.2026 KGR