APHC010606142022 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: 465/2022 Between: 1. EEVURI NAGA MALLESWARI, W/O. LATE NAGI REDDY NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION. HOUSE WIFE, RESIDENTS OF BOLLAVARAM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT JCJC SATTENAPALLI 2. EEVURI MANJUSHA, D/O. LATE NAGI REDDY, NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF BOLLAVARAM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT JCJC SATTENAPALLI 3. EEVURI VEERA BRAHMA REDDY, S/O. LATE NAGI REDDY, NOW AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, THE APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE BEING MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT EEVURI NAGA MALLESWARI, RESIDENTS OF BOLLAVARAM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT JCJC SATTENAPALLI 4. EEVURI ANNAPOORNAMMA, W/O. LATE VEERA REDDY, NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BOLLAVARAM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT JCJC SATTENAPALLI ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THOTA TIRUPATHI RAO, S/O. VENKATA RAO, (OWNER OF THE LORRY AP 07 TA 0027) D.NO. 2-50, CHINAPALAKALURU VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT GUNTUR JCJC 2 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEAR SAIBABA ROAD, RING ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC NOW AT 9/2, ARUNDELPET, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT POLICY NO. 463390/31/2016/760 VALID FROM 23-7-2015 TO 22-7-2016. 3. YEDLA ANJANEYULU, S/O. SEETA RAMAIAH, (DRIVER OF THE LORRY AP 07 TA 0027) CHINAPAKALURU VILLAGE,GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT JCJC GUNTUR ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobe pleased to set aside the Judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. 1055/2018 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Guntur 21-9-2022 and enhance the compensation to Rs.16,56,085/- as claimed or more together with interest @ 12percent per annum from the date of filing the Original Petition till the date of realization besides costs 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 permit her to amend the amount of compensation claimed from Rs.15,50,000/- to Rs.16,56,085/- in the Original Petition in MVOP No.1055 of 2018 on the file the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Addl. District Judge, Guntur and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants, challenging the order and decree dated 21.09.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1055 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,62,200/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs Sixty two thousand two hundred only) as against the claim of Rs.15,70,000/- to the petitioners/claimants, on account of the death of the deceased, Eevuri Nagi Reddy, in a motor accident that occurred on 25.06.2016. 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 25.06.2016 at about 3:00 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 07 AZ 7784 on the left side of the road margin near the Agricultural Check Post, Sattenapalli, Guntur District, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 07 TA 0027 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from behind. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries and was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Sattenapalli, where he was declared dead. A case in Crime No.173 of 2016 under Section 304-A IPC was registered by Sattenapalli Police. 4 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 b) It is contended that the deceased was aged about 30 years and was working as a tractor driver-cum-agricultural coolie earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to his sudden demise, the petitioners lost love, affection, dependency, support, and income. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are children, and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased. They also incurred expenses towards funeral and transportation of the dead body. Hence, they claimed Rs.15,70,000/- under various heads. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. 05. Respondent No.2 (insurer) filed a written statement denying all material allegations, including age, avocation, income of the deceased, and the existence of a valid insurance policy. It was further contended that the driver had no valid driving licence and that the vehicle lacked valid permit, registration, and fitness certificate, thereby violating policy conditions. The insurer also pleaded contributory negligence and disputed the claim as excessive. 06. Respondent No.3 (driver) filed a written statement denying negligence and disputing the age and income of the deceased. He asserted that he possessed a valid driving licence and that the vehicle was insured. He denied liability and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 07. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 5 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 “1. Whether Eevuri Nagi Reddy died in the road accident occurred on 25.6.2016 at about 3.00 p.m. near agricultural check post Sattenapalli, Guntur District due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.AP 07 TA 0027? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Exs.A1 to A7 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition is as follows: “IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.13,62,200/- along with proportionate costs and interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 29.8.2018 till the date of payment or realization. The respondents no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to be paid the compensation amount. In view of the contractual obligation under the insurance policy, respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation amount. ii) Respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said compensation amount with interest and costs within one month from this day. iii) Out of said compensation amount, the 1st petitioner is awarded Rs.6,62,200/- (Rs.6,18,200/- + Rs.44,000/- towards consortium) with interest and costs and out of which 2,00,000/- shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of two years and rest of the amount shall be withdrawn immediately. 6 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 iv) The petitioner No.2 and 3 are awarded Rs.2,25,000/- each and the said amount shall be deposited in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. v) The petitioner No.4 is awarded Rs.2,50,000/- and she is entitled to withdraw the said amount immediately. vi) Petitioners no.1 to 3 are entitled to withdraw the deposited amount with accrued interest on the deposited amount. vii) The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs. viii) The advocate fee is fixed of Rs. 1,500/-.” 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- despite evidence showing minimum wages of Rs.7,031/- and also failed to grant consortium to petitioner Nos.2 to 4. 11. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurance company has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. During pendency of this MACMA, the appellant preferred I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking amendment of claim petition by enhancing the claim amount to Rs.15,50,000/- from Rs.16,56,085/- with consequential permission to pay the additional court fee, on the ground that he was advised that they are entitled to more compensation than what has been claimed. Considering the same, the said application has been allowed, permitting the amendment sought for in 7 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 respect of the claim amount and directing the petitioners to pay the additional court fee. 13. Heard Ms.Eevuri Naga Malleswari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Gudi Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 14. 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?” POINT: 15. To prove the accident that has occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners/claimants relied upon the testimony of P.W.2, who was an eye-witness to the incident. P.W.2 has given a detailed narration about the manner of the accident, has categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the deceased, having sustained severe injuries in the said accident, and he was shifted to Government Hospital, where he was declared as dead. A perusal of the impugned award shows that nothing adverse was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to discredit or discard his evidence. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2/eye-witness coupled with Ex.A1-copy of F.I.R. registered in connection with the accident and Ex.A5-copy of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident 8 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and no interference is warranted with the said finding. 16. With the regard to the income of the deceased, on a perusal of the award shows that the case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as a tractor driver, as per the evidence of P.W.1 and was also engaged in cultivation and agricultural coolie works, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove their case, the appellants got examined PW4/Assistant Labour Officer, who produced Ex.X1/minimum wage particulars and VDA table for the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 applicable to light motor vehicle and tractor drivers, which shows wages of Rs.7,031.21 ps per month. However, the Tribunal observing that no documentary evidence was produced, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. In the absence any evidence to the extent of the income, and upon careful consideration of the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.X1, this Court finds that in the minimum wages payable to a light motor vehicle driver during the relevant period were Rs.7,031.21 per month, is to be considered. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the income of the deceased ought to be taken at Rs.7,031/- per month. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is computed at Rs.84,375/- (Rs.7,031.21 × 12). Further, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court inNational Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1,the Tribunal has added 40% to the annual income of the deceased towards future prospects and 12017 ACJ 2700 9 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 thereby, his total annual income together with future prospects was rightly calculated at Rs.1,18,125/- (Rs.84,375/- + 40%). Further, following the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, after deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure, the annual contribution to the family was calculated at Rs.88,594/-. By applying the relevant multiplier of „17‟ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 30 years, as recorded in Exs.A2/inquest and A3/postmortem certificate, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.15,06,098/- (Rs.88,594 X 17) towards loss of dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with settled principles of law. 17. Further, it is to be noted that, in addition to the above, in terms of Pranay Sethi, (referred supra) the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner. As the aforesaid conventional heads are liable to be enhanced at the rate of 10% once in every three years, the enhanced amount under the said heads comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.1,500 + Rs.4,000 + Rs.1,500), thereby totaling Rs.77,000/-. The said amounts are found to be just and reasonable and require no interference. However, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of parental consortium to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the minor daughter and son of the deceased and as well as towards filial consortium to the petitioner No.4 who is none other than mother of the deceased, though they are entitled for the same, in 22009 ACJ 1298 10 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 view of the settled legal position. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 towards loss of consortium. 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.12,85,200 Rs.15,06,098/- Conventional Heads i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses Rs.77,000/- Rs.77,000/- Loss of consortium to petitioners No.2 to 4 -- Rs.1,20,000 /- Total Rs.13,62,200/- Rs.17,03,098/- 19. In the present case, the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.16,56,085/- only, but on considering facts and circumstances of the case, this Court came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.17,03,098/-. 20. With regard to awarding compensation more than the claim amount claimed in the petition, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others3 , held as follows: “…there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, 3 (2003) 2 SCC 274 11 VS,J MACMA No.465 of 2022 which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” 21. In “Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.4 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: “33. We are aware that he amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded…..” 22. In view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this Court need not restrict the compensation to the amount claimed in the petition and can award more compensation than the amount claimed in the claim petition, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 23. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,62,200/- from Rs.17,03,098/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of additional court fee by the claimants within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 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 4 2020 (04) SCC 413