APHC010331182012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3605] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR M.A.C.M.A.No. 2107 of 2012 & 616 of 2014 M.A.C.M.A.No.2107 of 2012 Between: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KADAPA ...APPELLANT AND 1. MUDUMALA ROJAMMA 3 OTHERS, W/O LATE MALLA REDDY HINDU, HOUSEWIFE R/O CHINNA SINGANAPALLI VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. MUDUMALA NARSIMHA REDDY, S/O LATE MALLA REDDY CULTIVATION R/O CHINNA SINGANAPALLI VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. MUDUMALA ESWARA REDDY, S/O LATE MALLA REDDY HINDU, CULTIVATION R/O CHINNA SINGANAPALLI VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. B RAMI REDDY, S/O CHINNAIAH REDDY HINDU R/O CHALLABASAYAPALLI VILLAGE DUVVUR MANDAL ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA M.A.C.M.A.No.616 of 2014 Between: 1. MUDUMALA ROJAMMA AND 2 OTHERS, HOUSEWIFE R/O. CHINNA SINGANAPALLI VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 2. MUDUMALA NARASIMHA REDDY S/O. LATE MALLA REDDY, CULTIVATION R/O. CHINNA SINGANAPALLI VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 3. MUDUMALA ESWARA REDDY S/O. LATE MALLA REDDY, CULTIVATION R/O. CHINNA SINGANAPALLI VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. B RAMI REDDY AND ANOTEHR, OWNER OF TRACTOR & TRAILOR BEARING NO. AP 04 H1550 AND 1551 R/O. CHALLABASAYAPALLI VILLAGE, DUVVUR MANDAL 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KADAPA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU 2. . 3. KATTA LAXMI PRASAD 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR MACMA Nos.2107 of 2012 & 616 of 2014 The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. The MACMA No.2107 of 2012 is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited passed by the Chairperson-cum-Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur dated 23.06.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.58 of 2006, assailing the Award. 2. The MACMA No.616 of 2014 is filed the Claimants assailing the Award passed by the Chairperson-cum-Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur dated 23.06.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.58 of 2006,seeking enhancement of compensation. I.CONTENTIONS: 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Insurance Company cannot be liable to pay compensation as there is no coverage for the person travelling in the Trailer loaded with groundnut bags and prayed to allow the Appeal. MACMA No.616 of 2014 4. The learned Counsel for the Claimants submits that the Insurance Policy/Ex.B.3 was in force on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company has collected additional premium of Rs.375/- for Trailor, collected Rs.100/- for compulsory Personnel Accident to Owner-cum-Driver and Rs.25/- under the head of workman compensation to one employee, even in the worst case pay and recovery be ordered. 4 II. BRIEF FACTS: 5. The case of the Claimants is that they wife and children of M. Malla Reddy/deceased. That on 03.07.2005, the said M. Malla Reddy went on Tractor &Trailor/AP-04-H-1550 & 1551 to get groundnut bags from Bodhanam Village, he along with five coolies loaded groundnut bags, near Chagalamarri Road, the Driver of the Tractor drove in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the Tractor and turned turtle, due to which the said M. Malla Reddy and the coolies, who were sitting on the load, fell down and received multiple injuries. He sustained fracture to his ribs, mandibles, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur. The said Malla Reddy lodged a complaint to the police. While shifting to Government Hospital, Kurnool, on the way, he succumbed to injuries. In this regard Cr.No.57/2005 was registered under Sections 337, 304-A IPC by Rajupalempolice. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Tractor and Trailor and insured with New India Assurance Company Limited. The claim is filed for Rs.2,75,000/- and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. III. ANALYSIS: 6. After conclusion of arguments and on perusal of the record, there is no dispute in respect of road accident, negligent driving of the Driver of Tractor &Trailor/AP-04-H-1550 & 1551, death of M. Malla Reddy and insuring the Vehicle with the 2nd Respondent. The disputed aspects are whether the Tribunal was right in making the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just compensation. 7. The Tribunal recorded that the Deceased had loaded the ground nuts, he was on the Trailer and traveling with ground nuts. R.W.1 also admitted in his cross examination that the Owner of the goods can travel in the vehicle along with the goods. 5 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Honnamma&Ors,1 in identical facts, held that“where the Collee was traveling on the Trailor, made the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation.”The same is applicable to the present facts of the case. 9. The material on record reveals that the Tribunal relied on the Inquest Report/Ex.A.2 and recorded the age of the deceased as 58 years, assessed his income at Rs.25,200/- per annum, applied multiplier „8‟, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, awarded Rs.1,34,400/- towards loss of earnings. The Claimants could not prove that the deceased has income morethan the income assessed by the Tribunal. 10. As per the law of the Hon’ble Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “National Insurance Company v. PranaySethi2, applicable multiplier is „9‟. Thus,the Loss of dependency would be Rs.1,51,200/- instead of Rs.1,34,400/-. 11. As per the law in PranaySethi case (supra), for the Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.48,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years. 12. The Tribunal did not award compensation to sons/ 2nd and 3rd Claimants on the ground that they are majors. 13. Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court of IndiainNational Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Birender3, held that“the legal representatives of the deceased 1 AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 434 2(2017) 16 SCC 680 6 have a right to apply for compensation, even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The judgment is applicable to the present facts of the case and they are entitled for compensation.” 14.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur and others4, held that “the children are also entitled to consortium.” 15. Thus, the wife, two sons are entitled to Consortium. 16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the compensation enhanced by this Court, are as follows: S.No Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Compensation enhanced by this Court (Rs.) Remarks 1. Loss of Dependency 1,34,400/- 1,51,200/- As per PranaySethi case, applied multiplier „9‟ instead of „8‟ 2. Loss of Consortium 5,600/- 1,44,000/- Wife + 3 children as per PranaySethicase and Satinder kaur. Rs.48,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,44,000/- 3. Funeral expenses 5,000/- 18,000/- As per PranaySethi case with 10% hike 4 (2020) SCC Online SC 410 7 4. Loss of Estate Not awarded 18,000/- As per PranaySethicase 5. Loss of love and affection 5000/- 0 Included in the Consortium Total 1,50,000/- 3,31,200/- 17. Thus, the Claimants are entitled to Rs.3,31,200/-, but the claim is filed for Rs.2,75,000/-, thus the Court Fee to be paid for the compensation awarded over and above the claim of Rs.2,75,000/-. The compensation of Rs.3,31,200/- shall be apportioned at 70%:15% and15% ratio to the Wife and 2 sons/Claimants respectively. The interest of 7.5% pa ordered by the Tribunal shall be maintained under the circumstances of the case. IV. CONCLUSION: 18. In the result, the MACMA No.2107 of 2012 is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Claimants. 19. In the result, the MACMA No.616 of 2014 is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Claimants jointly and severally by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the circumstances of the case, while enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,31,200/-as stated in the Table with interest at 7.5%p.a from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realizationsubject to payment of additional Court Fee by the Claimants within 30days from the date of receipt of this Judgment. The compensation amount is apportioned at 70%:15% and15% ratio to the Wife and 2 sons/Claimants respectively. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR Dated 12.08.2026 JKS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR MACMA Nos.2107 of 2012 & 616 of 2014 12.08.2026 JKS