APHC010828712015 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: 13/2019 Between: I D Bhagayavathi and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND A Lava Kumar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. M BALASUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A JAYANTHI 2. 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, through its order dated 10.03.2015 in M.O.P.No.1223 of 2011, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SC & ST Cases (POA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The 1st appellant is the wife of the deceased and the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the children. 2. It is the case of the appellants that on 14.10.2008, the deceased along with Adapa Bala Krishna went to Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District on motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP 32 A 2479. The deceased Illapu Tirupathi Rao was travelling on the same as a pillion rider. When they reached Gandigundam Village on the State Highway, the offending bus bearing Registration No. AP 16 W 1718 driven by the 2nd respondent, came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the rider and the deceased fell on the road. The rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries and the deceased was died on the spot. A case in Crime No.130 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the offending bus. As the deceased was the only the bread earner of the family, in view of his sudden demise, the appellants approached the Tribunal by filing the above claim petition. 3. The owner and the driver of the offending bus i.e., the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 3 4. The 3rd respondent/ Insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that there was no negligence on part of the driver of the offending bus inter alea, it was also denied the manner in which the accident was occurred, age and avocation of the deceased. It was further averred that the driver of the offending bus had no valid driving license as on the date of accident and there was no valid fitness, permit and registration certificate for the offending vehicle. In view of the violation of the conditions of the policy by the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent contended that it was not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners. 5. It was further contended that the claim petition was also bad for non-joinder of necessary party, in asmuch as the Insurance company of the motor cycle was not arrayed as the party respondent. 6. With the above pleadings, the 3rd respondent/ Insurance company prayed to dismiss the claim. 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, the children were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. The rider of the motorcycle i.e., Sri Adapa Bala Krishna was examined as P.W.2 and one Sri Srinivasa Rao was examined as P.W.5. Apart from the same, the petitioners have also marked documents in Exs.A1 to A11. 8. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence. Considering the pleadings 4 and the evidence placed on record by the petitioners, the Tribunal by order under challenge, awarded compensation of Rs.3,61,000/-, together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization by fastening the liability of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants and Smt. A. Jayanti, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. As the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, this Court proceeded with the appeal. 10. Perused the record. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants would strenuously contend that the deceased was running Kirana Shop, apart from engaged in Real-Estate business. 12. It was further contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. In order to substantiate the claim of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 5 deposed in tune with the averments made in the claim petition. As can be seen from the record, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are none other than the claimants, therefore, their evidence is not helpful to decide the income of the deceased. However, the petitioners got examined the independent witnesses one Sri Adapa Bala Krishna as P.W.2. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2. would show that the deceased was running Kirana Shop. 5 13. During the cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that he has no personal knowledge that the deceased was engaged in the business of Real-Estate. By taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that a person who was running Kirana Shop during the year 2008 would certainly earn not less than Rs.200/- per day. However, the Tribunal without appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective, fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day, by treating him as a coolie. Further, the Tribunal had failed to give any reason as to why the deceased was treated as a coolie, especially the evidence of P.W.2 would show that the deceased was running a Kirana Shop as on the date of accident. 14. In that view of the matter, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.200/- per day and accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation as per the Judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi, 20171 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants would also draw the attention of this Court to the computation of compensation under various heads undertaken by the Tribunal. A perusal of the same would show that the same is not in consonance with the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 12017 (16) SCC 680 6 rendered in Pranai Sethi’s case referred supra. In view of the same, this Court is undertaking the exercise of computing the compensation as under: S.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs.200/- x 30 = Rs.6,000/- Rs.6000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/- 2. Future Prospects (aged 42) Rs.18,000/- (i.e., 25% of the income) Total Income Rs.90,000/- 3. Deduction (i.e., 1/3rd) Rs.30,000/- 4. Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.60,000/- 5. Multiplier of 14 for the age of 42 Rs.60,000/- x 14 = Rs.8,40,000/- Conventional heads 6. Loss of consortium (3 claimants) Rs.40,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/- 7. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 8. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 9. Total Compensation Rs.9,90,000/- 15. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,61,000/- to Rs.9,90,000/-, together with interest @ 6% per annum. Further, the respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced amount within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the 7 enhanced part of the compensation before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.24.07.2026 SCH 8 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.13 OF 2019 Date: 24.07.2026 SCH