1 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. APHC010648422022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 501/2022 Between: 1. MELLAM @ KONDAMUDI PADMA KOTI, W/O PRAKASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE AND TEACHER, R/O D.NO.27-2-97, 2ND LANE, COBALDPET, GUNTUR TOWN. 2. MELLAM DANIE SAMANVITHA, D/O PRAKASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O D.NO.27-2-97, 2ND LANE, COBALDPET, GUNTUR TOWN. 3. MELLAM ISAAC, S/O PRAKASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O D.N0.27-2-97, 2ND LANE, COBALDPET, GUNTUR TOWN. 4. MELLAM SATYANANDA JYOTHY, (DIED) 5. MELLAM MARTHAMMA, W/O SATYANANDA JYOTHY, AGED 71 YEARS, RIO D.NO.27-2-97, 2ND LANE, COBALDPET, GUNTUR TOWN. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. SHAIK NAGULA MEERA, S/O ABDUL REHAMAN, RAJAKAVADA, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO. AP 27 W 1356) 2. RAVURI SRIRAMA MURTHY, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, D.NO.20-2-70, RANGAVARI VEEDHI, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 27 W 1356) 2 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, III PARTY HUB, GARLAPATI COMPLEX, ALI BAIG STREET, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA. (POLICY NO. 560901311610001017 VALID UP TO 20-06-2017) (R1 AND R2 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. T S RAYALU The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 501/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 15.09.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.129 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, awarding compensation of Rs.16,52,000/- as against the claim of Rs.28,00,000/-, for enhancement of compensation amount. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tibunal i.e., appellants herein as Petitioners and Respondents herein as Respondents. 2. The claim petitioners being the wife, children and parents of Mellam Prakasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟), filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 and 476 of the A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a from the date of accident, till the date of realization and for costs. 3. The brief averments of the claim petition are that:- on 28.11.2016 at about 11.00 AM, the deceased was coming on his motor cycle from Atchampet 4 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. towards Sattenapalli, when the deceased reached near Pakalapadu on main road, the 1st respondent being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP27 W 1356 (hereinafter referred to as „offending vehicle‟) drove it in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, hit the marginally proceeding deceased motor cycle from his behind and as such he received multiple injuries and died on the spot. This accident was reported to the police and registered as Cr.No.161/2016 by the Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the 1st respondent. i. The deceased was aged 45 years, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident and he was a Radiographer in NRI Hospital, Chinakakani and getting Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. The deceased was skilled technician and working in NRI Hospital for 9 years and previously he worked in National X-Ray Unit at Guntur and he was having more than 20 years experience in Lab Technology and he was having diploma in Medical Radiography. If he is alive, his salary would have increased more in future and he would have earned more in future and spent the same to the petitioners. The petitioners lost their future support in addition to suffering mental agony and the 1st petitioner lost her marital happiness due to the premature death of the deceased and the petitioners are the only legal heirs and representatives and depend upon the income of the deceased. 5 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 5. Respondent No.3 filed written statement by denying the material contentions of the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of alleged accident and that the offending vehicle was not in a good condition to ply on the road. The deceased was not working as a Radiographer in NRI Hospital, Chinakakani and getting Rs.15,000/- per month towards salary and the petitioners created false document that the deceased is an employee and getting Rs.15,000/- per month. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is very high, excessive and exorbitant. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the Tribunal. 1) Whether the death of Mellam Prakasa Rao/deceased occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle AP27 W 13567? 2) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7. To prove the claim of the Petitioners, 1st petitioner - Mellam @ Kondamudi Padma Koti got examined as P.W.1, an eyewitness to the accident - 6 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. Tippireddy Brahma Reddy got examined as P.W.2, Office Assistant of NRI Hospital - Y.Eswara Rao got examined as P.W.3 and got marked Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.161/2016 of Sattenapalli Rural police station; Ex.A2: Certified copy of Charge Sheet; Ex.A3: Certified copy of Inquest; Ex.A4: Certified copy of Postmortem Report; Ex.A5: Certified copy of MVI Report; Ex.A6: Certified copy of Rough Sketch; Ex.A7: Service (Salary) Certificate; Ex.A8: Diploma Certificate; Ex.A9: Diploma Certificate; Ex.A10: Death Certificate of deceased. Ex.X1; Authorization Letter; and Ex.X2: Salary Certificate. On behalf of 3rd Respondent none were examined and no documents marked. 8. The Tribunal upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents and carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition partly by awarding Rs.16,52,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition and costs, directing the Respondent No.3 to deposit the compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of award on behalf of Respondents No.1 and 2. 9. Being aggrieved by the said Order/award, the claim petitioners have preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month without considering Ex.X.2 salary certificate which shows that the deceased was getting salary of 7 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. Rs.13,387/- per month and P.W.3 stated that if the deceased is alive, he would have got more than Rs.20,000/- per month, since deceased had more than 11 years experience as a Technician and the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month and assessed the compensation on the said monthly salary. The tribunal failed to award compensation under the head of love and affection, the tribunal failed in granting 40% addition towards income as future prospectus, Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under the head of consortium under parental consortium to the children as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in “Nanu Ram” case. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 15.09.2022 in MVOP No.129 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. 10. Heard the counsel for appellants as well as respondents. 11. Now the point for determination is: Whether the order/award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: On perusal of the award, it can be observed that the claimant got examined herself as P.W.1 and deposed with regard to the nature of the accident. She also got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. In support of her case, she also got examined P.W.2, who is a direct eyewitness to the said accident, who categorically deposed that on 28.11.2016 at about 11.00 a.m, while the 8 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. deceased was coming on his motorcycle from Atchampet to Sattenapalli and when he reached his village main road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and high speed and hit the marginally proceeding the deceased vehicle and fell down on the road and died on the spot. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, who is an eyewitness to the accident coupled with Ex.A.1 – copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 copy of inquest report, Ex.A.5 copy of M.V.I. Report, Ex.A.6 copy of Rough Sketch, in the absence of any contra evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents, held that the driver of the offending vehicle was alone responsible for the accident and the death of the deceased and that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the said accident as contended by the insurance company and answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimant. 13. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was aged about 45 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. P.W.1 further deposed that the deceased has worked as a Radiographer in NRI Hospital, Chinakakani and he was getting Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. However, P.W.1 has admitted during the cross-examination that it is mentioned in Ex.A.7 that her husband worked from 02.07.2007 to 31.08.2016 in the NRI Academy Science and that her husband was not working in the said Academy as on the date of 9 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. accident. In support of her case, claimant No.1 also got examined P.W.3, who deposed that the deceased worked as Technician in Radiology Department in NRI Hospital from 02.07.2007 to 31.08.2016 and his salary was Rs.13,387/- in the month of August, 2016. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 coupled with Exs.A.7 to A.9 held that the deceased has worked as Technician prior to the date of accident and was getting salary of Rs.13,387/-, but as on the date of accident, he was not doing job and getting salary, and taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-, which in the opinion of this Court needs no interference. 14. As the deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident as per Ex.A.3 copy of inquest and A.4 copy of postmortem report, he is entitled for an additional amount of 25% (depends) of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi1”, as such the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.12,500/-. (Rs.10,000 + 2,500). As there are 5 dependents (depends) in the present case, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/4th, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,375/- (Rs.12,500 – Rs.3,125). Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.9,375 X 12). After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. „14‟ for the age group of 41 - 45 years, as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court 1 2018 ACJ 2782 10 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2”, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.1,12,500 X 14) Rs.15,75,000/-. 15. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.44,000/- towards loss of parental consortium, and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.16,52,000/- to the claimants. 16. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.16,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, for the death of the deceased, was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 17. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 23.02.2026. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 11 MACMA NO. 501 OF 2022 VS,J. 224 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 501/2022 DATED 23.02.2026 KS