APHC010627422012 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 M.A.C.M.A.No.874/2012 Between: 1. CHELLA PEDDA VANNURAPPA AND ANOTHER, S/O. CHELLA CHENNAIAH, CULTIVATION, R/O. KATTAKINDAPALLI VILLAGE,PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. CHELLA CHINNA VANNURAPPA,, S/O. CHELLA CHENNAIAH, CULTIVATION, R/O. KATTAKINDAPALLI VILLAGE,PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. J SUDHAKAR AND ANOTHER, S/O. J.PEDDA ERUKALAPPA, OWNE OF THE AUTO, R/O. KATTAKINDAPALLI VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, D.NO. 15/442-10-1, MAYUR COMPLEX, ANANTAPUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V RAGHU 2. . 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: 1. The Appeal is filed by the Claimants against the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Gooty, dated 29.04.2010 in M.V.O.P No.354 of 2008, assailing the exonerating of the Insurance Company from its liability and seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation. I. CONTENTIONS: 2. The learned counsel for the Claimants submits that the deceased/ChellaChennaiah was travelling in the Auto Rickshaw along with his son/1st Claimant and two others, the 1st Respondent/Driver-cum-Owner drove the Auto in a rash and negligent manner, the Auto turned turtle, he fell down, ChellaChennaiah died and the 1st Claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal did not consider the earnings of the deceased/ChellaChennaiah at Rs.3,000/- per month but considered notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, also did not apply the correct multiplier and assess just compensation, and relied on the Judgment of the High Court of Telangana in M.A.C.M.A.No.1414 of 2019 dated 02.01.2020. The Tribunal also erroneously failed to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company but fastened liability on the 1st Respondent/Owner- cum-Driver of the Auto and prayed to allow the Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 submits that the 1st Claimant and deceased were sitting on the side of the Auto Driver and that the Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the 3 Claimants is on the coverage of the policy and its total liability and highest claim and sought to dismiss the Appeal. II.ANALYSIS: 4. The case of the Claimants is that they are sons of ChellaChennaiah/Deceased. That on 05.11.2008 at about 6.00 P.M, ChellaChennaiah with his son/Claimant No.1 were traveling in an Auto, the Driver/1st Respondent of the Auto Rikshaw drove in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the Auto turned turtle, ChellaChennaiah fell under the Auto and died at the spot, his son/Claimant No.1 sustained injuries. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.91 of 2007 was registered by the Pamidi Police. The claim is filed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded Rs.57,000/-. 5. There is no dispute in the arguments with regard to the driving by the Driver-cum-Owner/1st Respondent, the road accident, the death of ChellaChennaiah, insuring the Auto with the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company and the Insurance Policy/Ex.B.1 covers the risk of passengers and the same was in force as on the date of the accident. Thus, the disputed points are the Insurance Company’s liability and quantum of compensation. 6. The Tribunal recorded that the Auto was not overloaded. That at 7.00 p.m, the Driver had driven the Auto in a rash and negligent manner without lights by allowing the deceased to sit beside him. The Tribunal recorded a finding that Section 125 of the MV Act provides that no person 4 driving the motor vehicle shall allow any person to stand or sit to hamper the driver in his control of the Vehicle, also held the Driver-cum-Owner alone liable to pay compensation for his acts and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. Whereas the evidence of P.W.1 is that Driver-cum-Owner was negligent and responsible for the accident. The Charge Sheet/Ex.A5 show that the Driver-Cum-Owner alone responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has consistently held that the Driver-cum-Owner was negligent and responsible for the accident. Sitting beside the Driver is a violation, but the same alone cannot absolve the Insurance Company from its liability in the absence of evidence to show that the act of sitting beside alone contributed for the road accident. The learned counsel for the Claimants relied on M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1350 & 1414 of 2019, wherein 15 persons were travelling and upheld contributory negligence of 50% each for the two vehicles but limited the liability to the 3 highest claims and for the remaining claims, ordered the Insurance Company to satisfy the Award first and recover the same from the Owner of the Auto. 8. This Court, considering the material on record, inclined to hold that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability, thus, the 1st Respondent/Owner-cum-Driver and the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5 9. The Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.1/Claimant No.1 that his sister’s age was 50 years and held that the deceased must have been 70 years and applied multiplier ‘5’, also held that the Claimants could not prove his income and took notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 10. The learned counsel for the Claimants sought to take his monthly income at Rs.4,500/- and also to consider future prospectus and relied on M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1350 & 1414 of 2019(supra), but in that case the deceased was an agricultural labourer aged 45 years, whereas in this case the deceased was 70 years, thus the Claimants cannot avail the judgments in the circumstances of the case. 11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. 12. The Hon’ble Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “National Insurance Company v. PranaySethi1held that, 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. 13. Thus, the awarded amount of Rs.5,000/- for Loss of Estate and Rs.2,000/- for Funeral Expenses is to be modified. 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 6 14.The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur and others2, held that the children are also entitled to consortium. Thus, the Claimants/sons are entitled to Consortium. 15. 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 Compensation enhanced by this Court Remarks 1. Loss of Dependency 50,000/- 57,000/- Maintained as per the Award of the Tribunal. 2. Loss of Consortium Not awarded 96,000/- Rs.48,000/- each for the two Claimants as per PranaySethi and Satinder Kaur cases 3. Funeral expenses 2,000/- 18,000/- As per PranaySethi case 4. Loss of Estate 5,000/- 18,000/- As per PranaySethicase Total 57,000/- 1,89,000 16. Thus, the Claimants are entitled to Rs.1,89,000/-. The compensation of Rs.1,89,000/-shall be apportioned in the same ratio of apportionment as ordered by the Tribunal for Rs.57,000/- between the Claimants. The interest as awarded by the Tribunal is maintained under the circumstances of the case. 2(2020) SCC Online SC 410 7 17. Thus, the Award of the Tribunal is enhanced on quantum of compensation to the extent as indicated above table. III. CONCLUSION: 18. In the result, the Appeal 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.57,000/- to Rs.1,89,000/-as stated in the Table with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the Claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR Date: 14.08.2026 JKS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.874/2012 14.08.2026 JKS