APHC010023072012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3605] FRIDAY, THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1935/2012 Between: 1. SMT. MANDA SUBBALAKSHMI & 3 OTHERS, W/O LATE HARANADHARA REDDY HINDU R/O DOOR NO. 2-82, BEHIND REDDY RAMALAYAM STREET VEDURUPAKA VILLAGE, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, E.G. DISTRICT. 2. MANDA VEERA RAGHAVA REDDY, S/O LATE HARANADHARA REDDY HINDU R/O DOOR NO. 2-82, BEHIND REDDY RAMALAYAM STREET VEDURUPAKA VILLAGE, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, E.G. DISTRICT. 3. MANDA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O LATE HARANADHARA REDDY HINDU R/O DOOR NO. 2-82, BEHIND REDDY RAMALAYAM STREET VEDURUPAKA VILLAGE, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, E.G. DISTRICT. 4. MANDA DURGA VARA PRASAD, S/O LATE HARANADHARA REDDY HINDU R/O DOOR NO. 2-82, BEHIND REDDY RAMALAYAM STREET VEDURUPAKA VILLAGE, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, E.G. DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA RICE MILL NO 1 ANOTHER, REP. BY ITS PRIPRIETOR N. SATYANARAYANA COLLEGE ROAD ANAPARTHI VILLAGE, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO. ATP 8289 2 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INNESPETA RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G. DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY 2. . 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1935/2012 JUDGMENT: 1. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Claimants against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, dated 17.02.2011 in O.P.No.315 of 2009, assailing for the exoneration of the Insurance Company from its liability. I. CONTENTIONS:- 2. The learned counsel for the Claimants submit that the offending Lorry fell on the Driver/deceased due to mechanical failure but the Tribunal erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability but directed the Owner of offending Lorry to pay compensation, finally sought to modify the Award by directing the Insurance Company to pay at first instance to pay the Compensation and then recover the same from the Owner. Also submitted that the Claimants are four members and 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal and living expenses instead of 1/4th and prayed to consider the same. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company/ 2nd Respondent submits that the Driver himself drove the offending Lorry and caused the accident, the Police also filed the charge sheet against the deceased/Driver and prayed to 4 dismiss the appeal and relying on National Insurance Co. v. Prembai Patel and others1 and Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another2. II. BRIEF FACTS:- 4. The case of the Claimants is that the Claimants are wife and children of Manda Haranadh Reddy/Deceased, that he was working as Lorry Driver/ATP 8289, he and the Lorry Cleaner started from Venkateswara Rice Mill of Anaparthi, near Donthamuru Village they have loaded paddy bags and were returning to Anaparthi, the steering of the Lorry was struck and lost control, the Lorry turned turtle and he died at the spot. The accident was not due to the negligence of the Driver/Deceased but due to the lack of proper maintenance by the 1st Respondent/Rice Mill. The Lorry is insured with the 2nd Respondent. III. FINDINGS:- 5. There is no dispute after conclusion of the arguments on the accident involving the offending Lorry, death of Manda Haranadh Reddy and insuring with the 2nd Respondent. Thus, the points to be decided are whether 1/4 is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and whether the Insurance Company is also liable to pay compensation. 1 (2005) 6 SCC 172 2 2004 (8) SCC 553 5 6. The record reveals that the wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1. Further the Claimants also got examined as PW.2/eye witness. The Tribunal arrived at the income of the Deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum but deducted 1/3 towards his personal and living expenses. But the Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others3, relied Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another4, held 1/4th to be deducted for the deceased’s personal and living expenses, where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. In this case also, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Claimants 1/4th is to be deducted but not 1/3rd as recorded by the Tribunal as the dependent family members are 4 in number. Thus, the income of Rs.36,000/- to be deducted at 1/4th, which comes at Rs.27,000/-, to be multiplied with ‘13’, total compensation of Rs.3,51,000/- be awarded for loss of dependency. 7. The Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- to the 1st Petitioner/Wife towards Consortium, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards Transport Charges. 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 8. As per Pranay Sethi case supra, the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years. 9. As per United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur and others5, the children are also entitled for consortium. 10. Thus, the four petitioners are entitled to Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of Consortium, total Rs.1,92,000/- for Consortium, entitled Rs.18,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.18,000/- towards Funeral expenses in the place of Rs.2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of Funeral expenses, duly enhancing 10% for every three years for the three heads. 11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: S. No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation enhanced by this Court Remarks 1. Loss of Dependency 3,12,000/- 3,51,000/- 1/4th is be deducted as per Pranay Sethi case 2. Loss of Consortium 10,000/- 1,92,000/- Rs.48,000/- each for the four Petitioners as per Pranay Sethi case 5 (2020) SCC Online SC 410 7 3. Funeral expenses 2,500/- 18,000/- As per Pranay Sethi case 4. Transport Charges 1,000/- 1,000/- The Tribunal award is maintained 5. Loss of Estate – 18,000/- As per Pranay Sethi case Total 3,25,500/- 5,80,000/- 12. Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,80,000/-, but the Claim is filed for Rs.5,00,000/-, thus the Court Fee to be paid for the compensation awarded over and above the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. The compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- shall be in the same ratio of apportionment as ordered by the Tribunal for Rs.3,25,500/-. The interest of 7.5% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal is maintained. 13. The Tribunal recorded a finding that he negligently drove the Lorry while reversing it and was responsible for the Accident. The Claimants did not file any material to show that the Lorry is not properly maintained, the Appellant also could not demonstrate that the steering is struck and the Lorry turned turtle. 14. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relied Dhanraj case supra, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dismissed the Appeal, where the Claimant and others were travelling in his own Jeep and met with an accident, in the Claim Petitions filed by the Appellant and others, the Tribunal held that the Owner, Driver and Insurance Company is liable to pay 8 compensation, but in the Appeal it is held that the Appellant is owner and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 15. The facts are distinguishable, in Dhanraj case, the Appellant/Claimant is the Owner of the Jeep. In this case, the deceased was the Driver. Thus, the Insurance Company cannot avail the law in the circumstances of the case. 16. The Hon’ble Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prembai Patel case supra, where the Claim Petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, that the Truck Driver met with an accident and died as the arm bold broke down, the Truck was old and with heavy load, affirmed the Compensation, held the Insurance Company to satisfy the award restricting it to that arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Owner of the offending Vehicle would be liable to satisfy the remaining portion of the Award. 17. This Three Judge Bench Judgment is applicable to the facts of the case in favour of the Claimants as the Driver is a Workman though he caused the Accident, but the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the Award restricting it to that arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Owner of the offending Vehicle/1st Respondent would be liable to satisfy the remaining portion of the Award, if any. Thus, the Tribunal Award is modified on quantum and on the liability of the Insurance Company as stated supra. 9 IV. CONCLUSION:- 18. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, while enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,25,500/- to Rs.5,80,000/- as stated in the Table with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization subject to payment of additional Court Fee by the Claimants within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Judgment. The Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the Award, restricting it to that arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Owner of the offending Vehicle/1st Respondent would be liable to satisfy the remaining portion of the Award, if any. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR Date : 14.08.2026 CHD 10 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.1935 of 2012 Date: 14th August, 2026 CHD