1 Date of reserved for orders :08.05.2026 Date of pronouncement :28.07.2026 Date of uploading :28.07.2026 APHC010586802014 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: 1694/2014 Between: 1. POLAGANI VEERAMMA AND 2 OTHERS, W/O. LATE SATYAM, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KAZA VILLAGE, VENKATAREDDY PALEM, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, 2. POLAGANI PRAVEENA,, D/O. LATE SATYAM, STUDENT, R/O. KAZA VILLAGE, VENKATAREDDY PALEM, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, 3. POLAGANI SWAPNA,, D/O. LATE SATYAM, STUDENT, R/O. KAZA VILLAGE, VENKATAREDDY PALEM, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. SK AZEEM AND ANOTHER, S/O. JANI BASHA, TIPPARLA BAZAR, MANGALAGIRI TOWN AND D.M.C., GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SAMBASIVAPET, 2ND LINE, ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court 2 IA NO: 3 OF 2007(MACMAMP 53312 OF 2007 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2008(MACMAMP 5245 OF 2008 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 to condone the delay of 243 days in representing the MACMASR.No. 51111/2007 IA NO: 2 OF 2008(MACMAMP 5246 OF 2008 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 to condone the delay of 234 days in filing the MACMA IA NO: 3 OF 2008(MACMAMP 28778 OF 2008 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 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU 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.1694 of 2014 JUDGMENT: Introductory: 1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short "the learned MACT") in M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2005, the claimants before the learned MACT are the appellants herein. As against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-, the learned MACT awarded Rs.5,29,200/- with interest and incidental directions etc. Questioning the same as inadequate, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 2. Respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the Auto Riksha bearing No.AP 07 X 6492 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) remained ex parte before the learned MACT and Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company. 3. 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. Case of the claimants: 4(i). One Pologani Satyam (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), husband of claimant No.1 and father of other claimants, while crossing NH-5 Road, Kaza Village, Nambur Cross Road for going to church on 01.01.2005 at about 02:00 A.M, the offending vehicle came from Mangalagiri side driven 4 by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased causing instantaneous death. (ii). A case in Crime No.2 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently a charge sheet under Section 304-A IPC was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Deceased was hale and healthy aged about 43 years, working as Supplier in boys hostel, Nagarjuna University and he was getting Rs.8,000/- per month as salary. He was contributing his entire income to the family (claimants). The claimants are legal heirs and dependents. Due to death of the deceased their future became dark. Hence they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation. (iii). Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 being the insurer liable to pay the compensation. Case of respondent No.2: 5(i). The petitioners shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants. (ii). The negligence of the deceased is the cause for accident. (iii). The compliance of conditions of policy and entrustment of vehicle to proper driver etc. shall be strictly proved by the claimants. (iv). The compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. 5 Evidence: 6(i). Claimant No.1 examined as P.W.1. She is not eye witness to the accident. (ii). One Donta Satyanarayana, eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. (iii). One M. Siva Koteswararao, working as Junior Assistant in Nagarjuna University was examined as P.W.3, he deposed that deceased was regular employee and getting Rs.7,180/- as gross salary. (iv). Ex.X1 is disclosing the salary particulars of the deceased. 7. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents. Findings of the learned MACT: 8. The evidence of eye witness and crime record discloses the negligence of respondent No.1 as the cause for accident. The deceased was getting Rs.7,000/- per month and he was aged „44‟ years. There is negligence on the part of the deceased to a tune of 50%. 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards the personal expenditure. The income of the deceased as seen from the Ex.X1, gross salary of the deceased is Rs.7,184/-. The income can be taken at Rs.7,800/- per month taking note of increase. On deduction of 1/3rd, the balance comes to Rs.5,200/- per month. Then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,99,200/-. Claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In all entitlement comes to Rs.5,29,200/-. 6 Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants: 9(i). The learned MACT adopted multiplier „8‟ instead of „15‟ erroneously. (ii). The compensation awarded under other heads is not correct. For respondent-Insurance Company: 10(i). The learned MACT ought to have taken the income at Rs.7,800/- without sufficient basis and the compensation awarded is excessive. (ii). There are no grounds to interfere. 11. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. Scope of appeal: 12(i). Claimants filed the appeal. (ii). There is no appeal by the respondent Insurance Company. (iii). Therefore, violations of conditions of policy, the liability of the respondents and entitlement of claimants for compensation are all out of dispute. (iv). Just and adequate nature of compensation alone require answer. 13. The Points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants under the impugned order and decree dated 22.12.2006 by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or require any interference if so on what grounds and to which extent? 2) What is the result of the appeal? 7 Point No.1: Precedential guidance: 14(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 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. vs. 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. vs. Nanu Ram and Others3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the compensation under 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 2 2017(16) SCC 680 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 8 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. Just Compensation: 15. 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 4 (2013) 9 SCC 54 9 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. Analysis and findings: 16. As per the inquest report and post-mortem report, the age of the deceased is '46' years, which can be accepted as the age of the deceased. As per Ex.X1 and the evidence of P.W.3, the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.7,184/- per month. In view of the permanent nature of employment and the age of the deceased, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is permissible as per National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others case. Whereby, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.9,339/-. If 1/3rd of the same is deducted towards the personal expenditure, the contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to Rs.6,226/-, which can be rounded to Rs.6,230/- per month and it comes to Rs.74,760/- annually. For the age group of „46‟ years, the multiplier applicable, as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr is „13‟. Whereby, the entitlement of claimants for compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,71,880/- (Rs.74,760/- x 13). 17. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the conventional heads i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.1 to 4 towards loss of consortium viz. claimant No.1-spousal consortium and claimant Nos.2 to 3-parental consortium. 10 18. 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: Head Compensation awarded by the learned MACT Fixed by this Court (i) Loss of dependency Rs.,4,99,200/- Rs.9,71,880/- (ii) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- (iii) Loss of Consortium Rs.15,000/- @ towards claimant No.1 Rs.1,20,000/- @ Rs.40,000/- to each claimant (iv) Funeral expenses -Nil- Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.5,29,200/- Rs.11,21,880/- Interest (per annum) 6% 6% In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the length of time 19. 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.11,21,880/- 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 22.12.2006 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2005 require modification accordingly. {{{{ Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:- 20. 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 11 what is claimed. For the said proposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in: (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 5 (2003) 2 SCC 274 62020 (04) SCC 413 7 (2019) 2 SCC 192 12 cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty- bound to award just compensation.” 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows: (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2005 at Rs.7,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.11,21,880/- 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 / wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.5,21,800/- with proportionate interest and costs. (b) Claimant Nos.2 to 3 / children of the deceased are entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- each with proportionate interest. (iv) Respondents before the learned MACT are liable to pay the compensation. However, Respondent No.2 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. 13 (b) If the claimants fail to comply with clause (v)(a) above, the respondents 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. 22. 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 ✓ 14 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.1694 of 2014 28.07.2026 Knr