APHC010022202019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 40/2019 Between: Shaik Beebi And 5 Others ...APPELLANT AND C Ananda Swamy Naidu And 2 Others ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is preferred by the claimants, feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal through its order dated 19.09.2018 in MVOP.No.690 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and rules made thereunder claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the death of Shaik Madina, who died in accident that occurred on 06.05.2016, in which the offending bus bearing registration No.AP29TB5823 belonging to the 2nd respondent was involved. 4. It was the case of the petitioners that on 06.05.2016, while the deceased was proceeding towards Hyderabad, so as to purchase sheep and goats in wholesale market, when he reached Lingotam village on NH 65 road, Narketpalli, Nalgonda District, the offending bus proceeding towards Vijayawada driven by the 1st respondent/driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed the 3 vehicle of the deceased from behind. As a result, the vehicle of the deceased turned upside down and the deceased died instantaneously. The body of the deceased was shifted to the District Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda, for conducting post- mortem. A case in Cr.No.86 of 2016 under Section 304-A IPC was registered against the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus. 5 The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the wives, and petitioner Nos.3 to 6 are the children of the deceased. It is the further case of the petitioners that the deceased was about 50 years as on the date of the accident, and he was hale and healthy. It is further stated that he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by running meat shop. In view of the sudden demise of the bread earner of the family, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing the above petition. 6. The respondent Nos.1 & 2, i.e., the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company resisted the claim by filing counter affidavit. It was averred that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license as on the date of the 4 accident. It was further contended that the owner of the vehicle having knowledge about the same, allowed the 1st respondent to drive the offending bus, thereby the 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy. In such circumstances, it was contended that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the petitioners. Inter alia, it was averred that the petitioners have to prove the age and income of the deceased so as to claim the compensation. With the above pleadings, the 3rd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1. The petitioners have also examined PWs.2 to 4. Further, the petitioners got marked documents in Exs.P1 to P7. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, neither adduced oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal, by impugned order awarded compensation of Rs.5,64,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, by fastening the liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3. By contending that the order under challenge is not in consonance with the law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the 5 present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking to enhance the same. 8. Heard Ms.M.Deepa, counsel representing Sri T.S.Rayulu, counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Gudi Srinivas, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 1st respondent. Since the 2nd respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, this Court proceeded with the hearing of the appeal. 9. Perused the material available on record. 10. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that it was the specific case of the petitioners/appellants that the deceased was running meat shop and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioners have got examined PWs.2 to 4 who are the nearby shop keepers. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 would go to show that they have categorically deposed that the deceased was running meat shop and he used to purchase sheep and goats from Hyderabad in order to conduct his business. She would further submit that despite the specific pleading and the oral evidence available on record, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased as 6 Rs.5,000/-. She would further submit that the accident was occurred during the year 2016 and the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the case of the petitioners in its proper perspective while fixing the income of the deceased. 11. She would further submit that while placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.1, contends that, when there is oral evidence adduced by the parties available on record to substantiate the case of the petitioners, the Tribunal, without recording any reasons as to why the same was disbelieved, erroneously fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. A perusal of the judgment referred to herein above would show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court having considered the chief affidavit filed by the employer of the deceased therein, had fixed the income accordingly. By following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the income of the deceased has to be fixed. 12. It is not in dispute that the accident was occurred during the year 2016. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was running 1 (2019) 7 SCC 217 7 a meat shop by purchasing sheep and goats at Hyderabad. Further, admittedly the accident was occurred on the National Highway of Vijayawada to Hyderabad, while he was proceeding to Hyderabad to purchase the sheep and goats. In such circumstances, this Court does not see any reasons as to why the evidence placed before the Tribunal was disbelieved. 13. Further, during the year 2016, the income of the shop keeper would not be less than Rs.7,000/- per month. Having considered the facts of the case on hand, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellants would draw the attention of this Court that the Tribunal while awarding compensation, granted interest at the rate of 7%. She would further submit that this Court consistently awarding 7.5% interest. This Court finds sufficient force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant and in order to maintain consistency, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the interest component from 7% to 7.5%. Further, in order to compute the compensation that is entitled to by the petitioners, this Court undertakes the said exercise as under: 8 Description of the Head Amount Entitled in Rupees Net Annual Income Rs.7,000 x 12 = Rs.84,000/- Future Prospects (at the age of 50 years) Rs.8,400/- (i.e., 10% of the Income) Total Income Rs.92,400/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4th) Rs.23,100/- Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.69,300/- Multiplier of 13 for the age 50 years Rs.9,00,000/- (13 x 69,300) Conventional Heads: (i)Loss of consortium (6 claimants) Rs.2,40,000/-(6 x 40,000) (ii)Loss of Estate (iii)Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.11,70,000/- 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is Allowed, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,64,000/- to Rs.11,70,900/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Further, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two (02) 9 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioners are directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.24.07.2026 DSB 10 88 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.40 of 2019 Date 24.07.2026 U DSB