APHC010628012022 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 NO: 571/2022 Between: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY IT'S DEPUTY MANGER, T.P HUB, GUTTIKONDA ZOOM PLAZA, NEAR VINAYAK THEATRE, RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-10 ...APPELLANT AND 1. EDIGA RAMALINGANNA GOUD, A 2. EDIGA LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O EDIGA RAMALINGANNA GOUD, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC COOLI, R/O. TARIGOPULA VILLAGE, JUPADU BUNGLOW MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. K MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O K.MURTHUJA, OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING NO.AP21-W-3105, NEAR RANGAMAHAL THEATRE, ATMAKUR,KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtbegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Hon'ble Court, against the Judgment and decree dated 27-07-2022 passed in M.V.O.P No.468 of 2014 on the file Before The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool 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 2 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the Judgment and Decree order dated 27-07-2022 passed in M.V.O.P No.468 of 2014 on the file Before The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal —Cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool pending disposal of appeal 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 Stay Orders dt.02.01.2023 in IA.No.1 of 2022 in MACMA.No.571 of 2022 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The insurance company has preferred the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 27.07.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.468 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District, Kurnool, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,54,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Four thousand only) to the petitioners/claimants, as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Yellagoud Ramalinga Goud, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.06.2012. 02. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: On 10.06.2012, after loading goods at Bethamcherla in Andhra Pradesh, the deceased, who was working as a driver of the truck bearing No.AP 21-W-3105, proceeded towards Vasai via the Mumbai–Agra Highway along with the cleaner, namely Nagendra Babu, K. Narasaiah, for the purpose of unloading the said goods at Vasai. On the same day, at about 1:20 a.m., when the said truck reached near Mintu Dhaba within the limits of Kandali Village, the deceased, while driving the said vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a vehicle proceeding ahead of it. As a result, the truck turned turtle on the roadside. Consequently, the deceased, Yellagoud Ramalinga Goud @ Yella Goud Mitta, along with the cleaner, got 4 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 trapped in the cabin of the truck and sustained grievous bleeding injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Based on the report given by Dinesh Dhondu Kadam, Station House Officer, Padgha Police Station, Thane Rural, a case was registered against the driver of the truck for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 04. The claimants contended before the Tribunal that, at the time of the accident, the deceased, who was the driver of the truck, possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. He was hale and healthy and aged about 25 years. He was working as a heavy transport vehicle driver and earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-, apart from batta of Rs.200/- per day. He was contributing his entire income towards the maintenance of the petitioners. It is further contended that, due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners were put to great mental shock and agony, as they lost their sole breadwinner, and are now leading a miserable life. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 05. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed its counter denying all the allegations made by the petitioners and contended that the amounts claimed under various heads are imaginary, exaggerated, and made only to suit the claim, and that the compensation sought is highly excessive. It is further contended that the liability of the 2nd respondent is subject to proof that the deceased was employed under the 1st respondent and was working as a 5 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 driver of the truck bearing No. AP21-W-3105 at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent also alleged that the 1st respondent has colluded with the petitioners and is not properly contesting the claim. In its additional counter, the 2nd respondent contended that the petition is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts, and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as evidenced by the police records under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that the owner of the vehicle did not pay any additional premium to cover the risk of the deceased driver and that no such premium was collected under the policy; therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of truck bearing No.AP21-W-3105 2. Whether deceased Yella Goud Ramalingam Goud @ Yella Goud Mitta died in the accident? 3. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so what amount and against whom? 4. To what relief? 07. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 6 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “In the result, this petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.5,54,000/- (Rupees five lakh fifty four thousand only) to the petitioners with costs and interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till 01.03.2016 (which is the date of dismissal of this petition earlier). Petitioners also entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from 27.12.2021 (which is the date of petitioners concluded their evidence) to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till payment. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit compensation amount with interest and costs within one month from the date of this order. First and second petitioners are entitled to Rs.2,77,000/- each (Rupees two lakhs seventy seven thousand only) along with total costs and interest. On such deposit first and second petitioners are permitted to withdraw Rs.1,77,000/- each (Rupees one lakh seventy seven thousand only) initially along with total costs and interest proportionately and balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees one lakh only) shall be deposited in any Nationalized bank as fixed deposit for a period of two years. Petitioners 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw amounts deposited after expiry of respective periods. Rest of the petitioners claim is dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.” 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased. It is further contended that, since the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and the accident occurred due to his own negligence, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. The appellant also contended that the claim 7 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable in cases where the income of the deceased exceeds Rs.40,000/- per annum. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding future prospects and granting amounts towards funeral expenses and transportation charges, which are not in accordance with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Lastly, it is contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 10. Heard Mr.V.Raghu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Mr.N.Chandra Shekar Reddy,.learned counsel for the claimants. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The 1st claimant, father of the deceased, was examined as P.W.1 and deposed that the deceased was working as a driver under the 1st respondent and was driving the truck bearing No. AP21-W-3105 at the time of the accident. On 10.06.2012, in the early hours, while proceeding towards Vasai with a load, the deceased lost control of the vehicle near Mintu Dhaba, Kandali Village, dashed against a vehicle moving ahead, and the truck turned 8 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 turtle, resulting in his death. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.195 of 2012 by Padgha Police Station. Though the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contended that the deceased himself was negligent and that no additional premium was paid to cover the risk of the driver, R.W.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that Ex.B1 policy is a package policy covering the driver and that the premium was duly paid. The policy was in force as on the date of the accident. In view of the same, the finding of the Tribunal fixing liability on respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and warrants no interference. 13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of the accident. Though Ex.A2/inquest report and the postmortem report mention the age as 35 years, the driving licence/Ex.A4 shows the date of birth of the deceased as 09.05.1987. Accordingly, as on the date of the accident i.e., 10.06.2012, the age of the deceased is rightly taken as 25 years, and the same finding of the Tribunal warrants no interference. With regard to income, though the claimants asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month along with batta of Rs.200/- per day, in view of the claim being made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the annual income is to be restricted to Rs.40,000/-. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses, as the deceased was unmarried, the contribution to the family would be Rs.20,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier ‗18‘ applicable to the age group of 25 years, as per settled principles, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.3,60,000/- 9 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 (Rs.20,000 × 18). It is further observed that the Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects to the established income of the deceased, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, such addition towards future prospects is impermissible in a claim made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. Admittedly, the claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. For better appreciation, the said provision is extracted hereunder: ―163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, ―permanent disability‖ shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 10 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule‖ 15. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 introduces a special provision for the payment of compensation on a structured formula basis, creating a no-fault liability regime. Under this provision, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer becomes liable to pay compensation to the victim or to the legal heirs of a deceased in cases of death. In a petition filed under this provision, the claimant is not required to establish negligence, wrongful act, or default on the part of the owner or any other person and compensation shall be determined strictly in accordance with the II Schedule prescribed under the Act.This provision is intended to provide speedy and predetermined compensation to victims of motor accidents or their dependents. 16. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the substantive mechanism for filing an application for compensation arising out of a motor accident before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Under this provision, a claim petition may be instituted by the person who has sustained injury, by the owner of the damaged property, by the legal representatives of the deceased in case of death, or by any person duly authorised by them. A claim under Section 166 is upon the principle of fault liability, and therefore the claimant is required to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent act of the driver or owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, determines the quantum of compensation which appears to be just and reasonable, having regard to the nature of injuries, loss of dependency, medical expenses, and other attendant circumstances. 17. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act contains a table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and 11 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 income of the deceased. It specifies the amount of compensation to be awarded with reference to the annual income range of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. It does not specify the quantum of compensation in case the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/-, however, it provides the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. The table starts with a multiplier of 15, goes up to 18 and then steadily comes down to 5. It also provides the standard deduction as one-third on account of personal living expenses of the deceased. As such, where an application is under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured formula basis, even where the compensation is not specified with reference to the annual income of the deceased or is more than Rs.40,000/- by applying the formula: Two-thirds of the annual income multiplied by the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased. Several principles of tortious liability are excluded when the claim is under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has to be noted that where the annual income of the deceased exceeds Rs.40,000/-, a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable as the said provision is restricted to a specified income group; in such cases, the appropriate remedy lies under Section 166 of the Act. 18. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India, in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and ors., Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited2, while dealing with Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held as under: ―Chapter XI was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000/- having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto; compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefor. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column 1 2 2004 (5) SCC 385 12 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in column Nos. 2 to 6 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that the Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the amount of compensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or any other fault arising out of use of a motor vehicle.‖ Thus, Chapter XI of the Act was enacted to provide immediate relief to a limited class of victims whose annual income does not exceed Rs.40,000/- as compensation under Section 163-A and it is determined on a structured formula basis, as discussed above and is intended to be a full and final settlement without the need to prove negligence. Therefore, persons having an income above Rs.40,000/- are not entitled to file a petition under Section 163-A. In the present case, though the claimants themselves have contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per day, in which case the annual income exceeds Rs.40,000/-, the Tribunal considered the same despite the claim being filed under Section 163-A, which is contrary to the very scheme and intent of the provision. 20. In view of the above and considering the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the settled legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are not entitled for addition of 40% towards future prospects. Accordingly, the loss of earnings is fixed at Rs.3,60,000/-. 21. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges, which do not warrant any interference. However, on a perusal of the award, it can be observed that the Tribunal failed to grant any compensation under the head of parental consortium to the claimants, who 13 VS,J MACMA No.571 of 2022 are the parents of the deceased. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants under the head of parental consortium. 22. 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 earnings Rs.5,04,000/- Rs.3,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Transportation charges Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Loss of consortium -- Rs.80,000/- Total Rs.5,54,000/- Rs.4,90,000/- 23. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed, reducing the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,54,000/- to Rs.4,90,000/-, with the interest as ordered by the Tribunal. The compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 31.03.2026 KGR