1 APHC011395422016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 6/2022 Between: 1. KALAGLARA SATYANARAYANAMMA, W/O. LATE UDAYA BHASAKARARAO, AGED. 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-20, CHAGALLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. KALAGARA LAKSHMI ARUNA KUMARI, W/O. SIMHADRI SRIRAMACHANDRA MURTHY, AGED. 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-20, CHAGALLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. KALAGARA SIVA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. LATE UDAYA BHASKARARAO, AGED. 24 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-20, CHAGALLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. KALAGARA AMMIRAJU, S/O. LATE MUNESWARA RAO, AGED. 72 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-20, CHAGALLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. CH NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. SURYARAO, AGED. 55 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 37 V 3556, R/O. D.NO. 5-187, B.C. COLONY, DEAVARAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. PEPAKAYALA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. VENKANNA, AGED. 45 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 37 V 3556, R/O. D.NO. 5-187, B.C. COLONY, DEAVARAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DONDAPARTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 6/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. The Claimants preferred the present Appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P.No. 94 of 2014 dated 11.12.2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- IX Additional District Judge, West Godvari District at Kovvuru, wherein and where under the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.8,85,000/- to the claimants as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The Claimants filed a claim Petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of one Kalagara Udaya Bhaskara Rao in a motor vehicle accident. 4. 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd Petitioner is the married daughter, 3rd Petitioner is the son and 4th Petitioner is the father of the deceased. During the life time of the deceased, he used to earn Rs.16,595-66 Ps per month by working as driver in V.V.S Sugars, Chagallu. On 09.05.2014 at about 3.30 P.M, while the deceased was proceeding on his cycle, when he reached main road, Chagallu, a lorry bearing Registration No.AP37 V 3556 driven by 1st Respondent came in the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and hit the cycle of the deceased and on that, the deceased fell on the road and the tyre of lorry ran over the head of the deceased and thereby the deceased died on the spot. As the claimants lost the moral and financial support in their life due to the untimely 4 death of the deceased, they filed the present petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 5. The 1st Respondent is the driver of the lorry. 2nd Respondent is the owner of the lorry. 3rd Respondent is the insurance Company. Respondents No.1 and 2 though engaged a Counsel, have not filed written statement and not represented the matter and therefore, they were set ex-parte. Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company filed their written statement stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the cycle by the deceased and therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Respondent No.3 further stated that the petitioners are not the dependants on the deceased and consequently requested the Tribunal to dismiss the petition, with costs. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:- 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP37 V 3556 by the 1st Respondent? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, the quantum and payable by whom? 3) To what relief? 7. To prove their case, Petitioners examined 1st petitioner as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 through her. To prove the income of the deceased, Petitioners examined P.W.2 who is the Legal Assistant of V.V.S Sugars and got marked Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.7 through him. To prove the manner of accident, Petitioners also got examined the eyewitness to the occurrence of the accident as P.W.3. On behalf of 3rd Respondent, Insurance Policy copy was marked as Ex.B.1 by consent, but however no oral evidence has been adduced. 5 8. With regard to Issue No.1, the Tribunal relying on the evidence P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.3 who is the eyewitness to the said accident came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent, because of which, the deceased died on the spot. 9. Now coming to the question of quantum, the Tribunal basing upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and as well as Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.7 which were marked through P.W.2 considered the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and after deducting 50% of the income towards his personal expenses, fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and accordingly 5,000 x 12= 60,000/- p.a.,. As the age of the deceased was 52 years as on the date of accident, applied the multiplier as 11. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,60,000/- under the head of loss of earnings. Under the non-pecuniary damages of consortium, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- under the heads of transport and funerals, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. Considering all heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,85,000/-. 10. Aggrieved by the said Award, seeking enhancement, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants. 11. There is no dispute with regard to issue No.1 on the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 12. Now coming to the point of quantum, it can be observed that the claimants got marked Ex.A.6 (salary certificate of the deceased) and in support of it, they got examined P.W.2 - Legal Assistant of V.V.S Sugars to prove that the deceased was working as a driver in the V.V.S Sugars. Through P.W.2 also got marked Ex.X.1 – authorization given by employer of P.W.2 to give evidence, Ex.X.2 – salary certificate of deceased, Ex.X.3 – fresh authorization given by 6 employer of P.W.2 to give evidence, Ex.A.4 – original appointment order dated 01.01.1993 appointing the deceased as trainee driver, Ex.X.5 – original appointment Order dated 15.05.1995 appointing the deceased as Seasonal truck shunter for the season 1994-95, Ex.X.6 – attested copy of employment regularization letter dated 11.11.2010 and Ex.X.7 – Provident fund account particulars of deceased were also marked as exhibits. In spite of the fact that as per Ex.A.6 the deceased was earning Rs.16,595-55 Ps, supported by the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal wrongly fixed notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- on a wrong view that the deceased has not attend the work from November, 2013 to till his death due to his illness, though there was no such pleadings or any evidence to that extent. Tribunal also wrongly deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased though he was a married person, instead of deducting 1/3rd. 13. Perused the evidence and as well as the exhibits marked. As Ex.A.6 was supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Respondents on that aspect, this Court considers that the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.16,500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd, the income of the deceased towards living and personal expenses, it comes to (16500 – 1/3 = Rs.11,000/- per month + 10% addition towards future prospects as the deceased was aged 52 years (11000 x 10%=1100) Rs.12100/- per month. As such the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.15,97,200/- (12,100 x 12 x 11 =15,97,200) under the head of loss of earnings. 14. As the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under the heads of non-pecuniary damages and loss of consortium an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and under the heads of transport and funeral expenses an amount of Rs.25,000/- this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 7 15. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Ps. Amounts now enhanced by this Court Rs. Ps. 1. Loss of earnings 6,60,000/- 9,37,200/- 2. Non-pecuniary damages and consortium 2,00,000/- -- 3. Transportation and funeral expenses 25,000/- -- Total 8,85,000/- 9,37,200/- Amount of compensation now awarded is as follows: Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal : Rs. 8,85,000/- Compensation enhanced : Rs. 9,37,200/- Total amount of compensation awarded : Rs. 18,22,200/- 16. Accordingly, the compensation to be paid to the Appellants is enhanced, from Rs.8,85,000/- to Rs.18,22,200/- (Rs.15,97,200 + Rs.2,25,000/-). However, as this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 on 03.01.2025 while condoning the delay of 2105 days in resubmitting the petition ordered that the Petitioners are not entitled to interest on the principal amount of liability for the delay period of 2105 days, if they succeeded in the appeal, the Petitioners are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation amount alone. 17. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.18,22,200/- from Rs.8,85,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, except on the enhanced amount for the delay period of 2105 days. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 02.02.2026. 9 45 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 6/2022 DATED 02.02.2026 KS