1 Date of reserved for orders :08.05.2026 Date of pronouncement :28.07.2026 Date of uploading :28.07.2026 APHC010077122014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 912/2014 Between: 1. SMT. CHIRIKI DEMUDAMMA & ANOTHER, W/O DEMUDU, R/O KOTHAPENTA (V) DEVARPALLI (M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT. CHIRIKI DEMUDU, S/O NARAYANAPPA, HINDU R/O KOTHAPENTA (V) DEVARPALLI (M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. MR RONGALI DEMUDU NAIDU ANOTHER, S/O VENKATA SWAMY, OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. AP 31 AM 3931 R/O RONGALINAIDUPALEM (V) K. KOTAPADU (M) VISAKHAPATNAM 2. IFCOTOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPTD. BY ITS MANAGER, 4TH FLOOR, LOHIYA TOWERS, D.NO. 49-9/1- 12, OPP. NIRMALA CONVENT, VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 5018 OF 2012 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 2 pleased to condone the delay of 99 days in presentation in MACMASR NO. of 2012 dt. on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. . The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.912 of 2014 JUDGMENT: Introductory: 1. One Chiriki Venkata Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 10.02.2009 at about 08:40 p.m. near 12th K.M. stone, Dupputhuru Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, within the limits of Rambilli Police Station. His parents filed M.O.P.No.442 of 2010 and disputing the order and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (for short “the learned MACT”), awarding compensation of Rs.2,13,500/- as against the claim made for Rs.5,00,000/-, contending that the same is inadequate and that the claimants are entitled for more amount, the present appeal is filed. 2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 AM 3931 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured. 3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned MACT. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners/claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. 4 Case of the claimants: 5(i). They are dependents on the deceased and the deceased was aged about „24‟ years, working in Venkateswara Finance Company and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 was riding the motor vehicle on which the deceased was travelling. (ii). Due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, both of them fell down at the accident spot and the deceased sustained head injuries. Both were shifted to Apex Hospital, Visakhapatnam, but while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 17.02.2009. (iii). The claimants incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment. (iv). Negligence of the respondent No.1 is the cause for accident. (v). Respondent No.2, being the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured, is liable to pay the just and reasonable compensation. Case of respondent No.2: 6. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of respondent No.1, age, occupation and income of the deceased and death of the deceased due to the accident. The premium for policy was paid by way of cheque and the cheque was dishonored. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable. However, the deceased himself was negligent in hurriedly getting 5 down from the vehicle and suffered the accident and death. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. 7(i). During trial, on behalf of the claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1, one K. Nagendra Babu was examined as P.W.2 to show that the deceased was treated at Apex Hospital and one Ch. Govinda Rao was examined as P.W.3 to show that the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. (ii). Further, claimants relied on Ex.A1-attested copy of F.I.R, Ex.A2- attested copy of Post Mortem Report, Ex.A3-attested copy of MVI report, Ex.A4-attested copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.A5-Photostat copy of the policy, Ex.A6-Original Medical Bills for Rs.43,500/-, Ex.A7-Receipts issued by APEX Hospital, Ex.A8-Receipt issued by Steel City CT Scan Pvt. Ltd., Ex.A9-Salary Certificate of the deceased issued by Sri Venkateswara Chits and Finance and Ex.X1-case sheet issued by APEX Hospital. (iii). No evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents. Findings of the learned MACT: 8. The deceased was admittedly a pillion driver. The vehicle was driving by respondent No.1 at the relevant time. Ex.A3-MVI Report shows that the accident is not due to mechanical defect. Charge sheet was laid against respondent No.1 vide Ex.A4. 9. Respondent No.1 is not examined to disown the negligence and to prove the specific stand of respondent No.2 that the deceased himself was negligent. Therefore, the negligence of respondent No.1 is acceptable. The 6 ages of the petitioners are 45 and 55 and their average age is 50 years. Therefore, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 50 years can be taken. The deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as per Ex.A9- Salary Certificate. The claimants are entitled for the amount covered under Ex.A6, i.e. Rs.43,500/-. 10. The multiplier applicable to the age group of „50‟ years, viz. 9 can be applied and the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month and his contribution, being unmarried, to the petitioners can be taken at Rs.18,000/- per annum. When the same is multiplied by the multiplier, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,62,000/-. Towards funeral expenditure, the claimants are entitled for Rs.8,000/-. In all, the entitlement of the claimants is Rs.2,13,500/-. Arguments in the appeal: For the appellants / claimants: 11(i). Taking the multiplier with reference to the age of the dependents / claimants is not correct. (ii). When the income was shown at Rs.6,000/-, accepting the income at Rs.3,000/- and deducting 50% without adding future prospects is not correct. (iii). The compensation awarded under conventional heads is not in tune with the settled law and practice. For the respondent Insurance Company: 12(i). Negligence is not proved properly and the contributory negligence of the deceased in the occurrence of the accident should have been taken. 7 (ii). Taking the income at Rs.3,000/- per month by the learned MACT is proper and the acceptance of the income of the deceased by the learned MACT need not be interfered with. 13. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. Scope of appeal: 14(i). The appeal is by the claimants. (ii). Liability and entitlement of the claimants, are deemed to have been attained finality and beyond the scope of appeal, as the Insurance Company did not choose to prefer any appeal. 15. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the compensation of Rs.2,13,500/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and adequate or requires enhancement? If so, to what tune? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential guidance: 16(i). For having uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation, the Hon‟ble Apex Court provided guidelines as to adoption of multiplier depending on the age of the deceased in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.1 and also the method of 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 8 calculation as to ascertaining multiplicand, applying multiplier and calculating the compensation vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the Judgment. (ii). Further the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others2 case directed for adding future prospects at 50% in respect of permanent employment where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where deceased is between 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, in respect of self employed etc., recommended addition of income at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years and at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, awarding compensation under conventional heads like loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenditure at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is also provided in the same Judgment. (iii). Further in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the compensation under the head of loss of consortium can be awarded not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents of the deceased under the heads of parental consortium and filial consortium. 2 2017(16) SCC 680 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 9 Just Compensation: 17. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others4, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to „make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just‟. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be „just‟. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. 4 (2013) 9 SCC 54 10 Analysis: 18. As per the settled practice and law and the guidance of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased shall be taken into consideration. The deceased was aged about „24‟ years. The multiplier applicable to the age group „24‟ years is „18‟. The income of the deceased, as per Ex.A9 is Rs.6,000/- per month. P.W.3 deposed supporting the document Ex.A9. Therefore, the income mentioned under Ex.A9 can be accepted. The same can be adopted with an addition of 30% towards future prospects. Then, the income of the deceased can be accepted at Rs.7,800/- per month and Rs.93,600/- per annum. Since the deceased was unmarried, if 50% of the income is deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, the contribution to the claimants would be Rs.46,800/- per annum and the same can be considered as multiplicand. When the multiplier „18‟ is applied, the entitlement of claimants for compensation under the head of loss of dependency is Rs.8,42,400/-. Towards medical expenditure, the claimants are entitled for Rs.50,000/- in view of Ex.A6 and X-ray vouchers etc. Towards funeral expenditure and loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- under each head. 19. Further, the claimants are entitled for loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each under the head of filial consortium. 20. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows: 11 Head Compensation awarded by the learned MACT Fixed by this Court (i) Loss of dependency Rs.1,62,000/- Rs.8,42,400/- (ii) Medical expenditure Rs.43,500/- Rs.50,000/- (iii) Loss of estate -Nil- Rs.15,000/- (iv) Loss of Consortium -Nil- Rs.80,000/- @ Rs.40,000/- to each claimant (v) Funeral expenses Rs.8,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.2,13,500/- Rs.10,02,400/- Interest (per annum) 7.5% 6% In view of long lapse of time and considering the facts and circumstances of the case 21. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the point framed is answered concluding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,02,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and the order and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned MACT in M.O.P.No.442 of 2010 require modification accordingly. Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 22. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in: 12 (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others5, at para 21 of the judgment, that – “..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, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.” (2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.6 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:- “33. We are aware that the 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 especially where the claimant is a minor.” (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others7 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:- “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty- bound to award just compensation.” 5 (2003) 2 SCC 274 62020 (04) SCC 413 7 (2019) 2 SCC 192 13 Point No.2: 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows: (i) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.O.P.No.442 of 2010 at Rs.2,13,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,02,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (ii) Claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. (iii) Apportionment: (a) Claimant No.1 / mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.6,02,400/- with proportionate interest and costs. (b) Claimant No.2 / father of the deceased is entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- with proportionate interest. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the learned MACT are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 / Insurance Company is liable in view of the insurance policy. (v) Time for payment /deposit of balance amount is two months. (a) If the claimants furnish the bank account number within 15 days from today, the respondents shall deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the claimants and file the necessary proof before the learned MACT. 14 (b) If the claimants fail to comply v(a) above, the respondent No.2 / Insurance Company shall deposit the amount before the learned MACT and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeal. 24. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:28.07.2026 Knr Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ✓ Reportable Non-reportable ✓ 15 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.912 of 2014 28th July, 2026 Knr