Jonnada Mariyamma and 3 Others Vs Y.Sankara Rao and 2 Others

Jonnada Siva Prasada Rao, S/o.Late Anandayya, Hindu, aged about 25 years. Student, R/o.Narsipuram Village and Panchayat, Parvathipuram Mandal and Taluq, Vizianagaram District.

¶11

Jonnada Kalpana, D/o.Late Anandayya Hindu, aged about 22 years,

¶12

R/o.Narsipuram Village and Panchayat, Parvathipuram Mandal and Taluq, Vizianagaram District.

¶13

Jonnada Vijaya kumar, S/o.Late Anandayya Hindu, aged about 21 years. Student, R/o.Narsipuram Village and Panchayat Parvathipuram Mandal and Taluq, Vizianagaram District.

¶14

—Appellants

¶15

AND

¶16

Y.Sankara Rao, S/o.Appalaswamy, Hindu, aged about not known Driver of Bajaj Temo Trax bearing No.AP 35 2640, R/o.D.No.14-137 , Durga Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

¶17

The Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Parvathipuram.

¶18

United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam.

¶19

(R1 is not necessary party herein)

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree dated 12-07-2004 passed in OP.No.1069 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additi onal District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

¶22

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Smt Jayanti SC Sekhar, Advocate for Appellants, and GP for Arbitration for Respondent No.2 and of Sri Narersh Byrapaneni, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶23

That the Appeal be and the same hereby is allowed; 2. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.11,30,948/- jointly and severally to the appellants/claimants with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of payment;

¶24

That the respondents be and hereby are directed to pay the enhanced compensation along with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

¶25

That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal.

¶26

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To

//TRUE COPY//

SEC^rdp^FICER

The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶31

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

¶32

Two CD Copies

¶33

BSV

¶34

sree

¶35

Npte.(XXX) Since the Paragraph No. 12 in the Judgment, dated 03-07-2025 i n MACMA No. 1111 of 2005 is amended as per the Court Order dated 28-08-2025 made in lA No.1 of 2025 in MACMA No.1111 of 2005, the Decree is also amended to that effect.

¶36

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶37

HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025

¶38

28/08/2025

¶39

AMENDED DECREE MACMA NO. 1111 OF 2005

¶40

g 29AUS 2025 ^
Cujrreni Seciion

¶41

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶42

APHC010426942005

¶43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶44

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶45

PRESENT

¶46

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶47

lyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1111 OF 2005

¶48

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree dated 12-07-2004 passed in OP.No.1069 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims T ribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

¶49

Between:

¶50

Jonnada Mariyamma, W/o.Late Anandayya Hindu, aged about 42 years. House wife. R/o.Narsipuram Village and Panchayat, Parvathipuram Mandal and Taluq, Vizianagaram District.

¶51

Jonnada Siva Prasada Rao, S/o.Late Anandayya, Hindu, aged about 25 years. Student, R/o.Narsipuram Village and Panchayat, Parvathipuram Mandal and Taluq, Vizianagaram District.

¶52

Jonnada Kalpana, D/o.Late Anandayya, Hindu, aged about 22 years, R/o.Narsipuram Village and Panchayat, Parvathipuram Mandal and Taluq, Vizianagaram District.

¶53

Jonnada Vijaya kumar, S/o.Late Anandayya, Hindu, aged about 21 years. Student, R/o.Narsipuram Village and Panchayat, Parvathipuram Mandal and Taluq, Vizianagaram District.

¶54

...Appellants

¶55

AND

¶56

Y.Sankara Rao, S/o.Appalaswamy, Hindu, aged about not known. Driver of Bajaj Temo Trax bearing No.AP 35 2640, R/o.D.No.14-137 , Durga Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

¶57

The Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Parvathipuram.

¶58

United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam.

¶59

(R1 is not necessary party herein)

¶60

...Respondents

¶61

lA NO: 2 OF 2005fMACMAMP 1888 OF 2005)

¶62

Petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to get their claim petition being M.O.P.No.1069 of 2002 on the file of MACT-cum-Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram amended by making the mentioned in the affidavit for amendment.

¶63

Counsel for the Appellants: Smt. Jayanti S C Sekhar

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP for Arbitration

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri Naresh Byrapaneni

¶66

The Court made the following:

¶67

[3311]

¶68

APHC010426942005

¶69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶70

AT AMARAVATI

¶71

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶72

Thursday, the 3'^^ day of July two thousand and twenty^five

¶73

Present

¶74

The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi

¶75

M.A.C.M.A No.1111 of 2nnfi

¶76

Between:

¶77

Jonnada Mariyamma and 3 others, w/o late Anandayya, hindu house wife r/o Narsipuram village and panchayat. Parvathipuram mandal and taluq, Vizianagaram district.

¶78

Jonnada Siva Prasada Rao, s/o late Anandayya, hindu student, r/o Narsipuram village and panchayat, Parvathipuram mandal and taluq, Vizianagaram district.

¶79

Jonnada Kalpana,, d/ late Anandayya, hindu student, r/o Narsipuram village and panchayat, Parvathipuram mandal and taluq, Vizianagaram district.

¶80

4, Jonnada Vijaya Kumar, s/o late Anandayya, hindu student, r/o Narsipuram village and panchayat, Parvathipuram mandal and taluq, Vizianagaram district.

¶81

...Appellants

¶82

and

¶83

Y.Sankara Rao, s/o Appalaswamy, hindu, aged about not known. Driver of Bajaj Temo Trax bearign no.AP 35 2640, r/o d.no. 14137, Durga nagar, Visakhapatnam.

¶84

The Project Officer, I.T.D.A. Parvathipuram.

¶85

United India Insurance Company Limited rep. by its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam. ...Respondents

¶86

2

¶87

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A No.llll of 2005

¶88

Counsel for the appellants:

¶89

Uayanti S. C. Sekhar

¶90

Counsel for the respondents:

¶91

1 2 G.P. for Arbitration 3 - Sri Naresh Byrapaneni

¶92

The Court made the following:

¶93

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A No.llll of 2005

¶94

JUDGMENT;

¶95

This appeal by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed against the award and decree, dated 12.07.2004, in O.P.No.1069 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court, Vizianagaram, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by^theTribunal. 2. The case of the claimants, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The appellants / claimants are residents of Narsipuram village. Jonnada Anandayya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) is the husband of the 1®‘ petitioner and father of petitioners Nos.2, 3 & 4. The deceased was working as Sub-Post Master, Parvatipuram.

¶96

b. On 07.06.2002, at about 10.30 pm, when the deceased came out from his house near Narsipuram to attend calls of nature, a Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing No.AP 35 2640 driven by the 1®* respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from Narsipuram side and dashed the deceased due to which the deceased sustained grievous injury to his head and died on the spot. After the accident, the 1®* respondent, without caring the deceased drove the vehicle with high speed. The 2"'‘ petitioner, who witnessed the accident, gave a report to Parvatipuram Rural Police who registered a case in Crime No.33 of 2002 under Section 304-A IPC. c. The claimants are dependants on the earnings of^thedeceased. Due to his sudden death, all of them became destitute and the 1®* petitioner lost her consortium which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The claimants sought a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶97

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A No.1111 of 2005

¶98

d. The respondent is the driver, the 2"" respondent is the owner and the 3'^'^ respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 35 2640. As on the date of accident, the policy issued by the 3^^ respondent was subsisting. As such, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 3. The 1® respondent filed counter opposing the claim and contending that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent and that the accident is the result of ^SQliQsnce and confusion of the deceased who crossed the road suddenly. The 1®* respondent is well experienced in driving and well acquainted with the traffic rules. The 1®* respondent had a valid driving licence which was in force till 08.06.2016. The 1®‘ respondent is a daily wage employee / driver in the office of the 2^^ respondent, This respondent has taken all care to avoid the accident, The amount claimed under various heads is excessive and abnormal. The vehicle is insured with the 3^^ respondent and as such, the 3^^^ respondent is liable to pay the compensation.

¶99

b. The 2"^* respondent filed counter contending that the accident was caused due to the negligence and confusion of the deceased who crossed the road suddenly. The amounts claimed under various heads is excessive and abnormal. The vehicle is insured with the respondent and as such, the 3^^ respondent is liable to pay compensation, if any. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. c. The 3^'^ respondent / insurance company filed counter contending that all the allegations in the petition are false; that the 1®‘ respondent was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident; that the

¶100

5

¶101

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A No.llll of 2005

¶102

particulars of the policy as mentioned in the petition are not true and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation; that no documentary evidence was filed to show that the deceased was working^asSubPost Master and drawing salary of Rs.9,000/- and hence, the amount claimed by the claimants is excessive; and that this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation as the accident is the result of contributory negligence.

¶103

On the basis of the above pleadings, the following^issueswere framed for trial:-

¶104

i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing No.AP 35 2640 by the 1®* respondent?

¶105

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, from which of the respondents?

¶106

iii) To what relief?

¶107

During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners,^PWs 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and exhibits B1 and B2 were marked.

¶108

Exhibit A1 is the true copy of FIR in Crime No.33 of 2002 of Parvatipuram (Rural) police station; exhibit A2 is the true copy of the inquest report; exhibit A3 is the true copy of post mortem certificate; exhibit A4 is the true copy of charge sheet; exhibit A5 is the true copy of M.V.I report; exhibit A6 is the two photos with negatives;^exhibitA7 is the copy of pay certificate; exhibit A8 is the true copy of Service

¶109

6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A No.llll of 2005

¶110

Register of the deceased; and exhibit A9 is the Last Pay Certificate of the deceased. 7. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal assessed the total amount of compensation payable as Rs.7,01,200/- with proportionate^costsand interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the respondents 1 to 3. The rest of the claim was dismissed. 8. The grievance of the appellants is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Since the deceased was working as a sub-post master and his gross salary was Rs.8365/- per month as on the date of his death which is established under Ex.A.9, last pay certificate, the Tribunal took the same value for the purpose of awarding loss of earnings. After the same 1/3"'^ of the amount was deducted towards his personal expenses and the remaining amount was multiplied by ‘12’ to arrive at annual contribution to the family. The resultant amount was multiplied by ‘10’ to arrive at the total loss of earnings on account of his death. The deceased was aged 47 years. Therefore, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ^ the relevant multiplier for the persons aged 46 to 50 is ‘13’. Therefore, the multiplier ‘10’ adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. Since the age of superannuation for a Central Government employee was 60 years, whereas the deceased was aged 47 years, he had the possibility of earning more income in future. As such, the future prospects shall also be included to his annual contribution. Thereby, 30% of his income shall be added towards his future prospects and then 1/3"'^ of his income

¶111

AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶112

7

¶113

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A No.1111 of 2005

¶114

is deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly,^theamount shall be calculated as follows:

¶115

Rs.8365 X 12 = Rs.1,00,380/-

¶116

Rs. 1,00,380/-X 30/100= 30,114/Rs. 1,00380 + 30,114 = 1,30,494/-

¶117

Rs. 1,30,494 X 1/3 = 43,498/-

¶118

Rs. 1,30,494 -43,498 = Rs.86,996/Rs. 86,996 X 13 = 11,30,948/-

¶119

There is a calculation error made by the Tribunal by omitting Rs.2,000/in the total amount payable as per its calculation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,69,200/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/towards transportation charges, Thus, the total amount is Rs.7,03,200/-, however Rs.7,01,200/- only was awarded.

¶120

Since the rest of the amounts awarded under different heads are adequate, the said amount need not be increased, but the petitioners No.2 to 4 are further entitled to loss of love, support^and affection. Therefore, all of them are entitled to Rs.2,000/- each, in addition to loss of consortium to the 1®‘ petitioner.

¶121

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the^enhanced compensation of Rs.11,30,948/- jointly and severally to the appellants / claimants with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of payment. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be paid

¶122

8

¶123

BSB, J M.A.C.M.A No.llll of 2005

¶124

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶125

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

¶126

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶127

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this appeal,^shallstand

¶128

closed.

¶129

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. (With records)

¶134

One CC to Smt. Jayanti S C Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶135

One CC to Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, Advocate [OPUC]

¶136

The Section Officer. V.R.Section, High Court of A.P at Amaravati.

¶137

Two CD Copies

¶138

BSV

¶139

sree

¶140

Ngte:(XXX) In Paragraph No. 12 of the Judgment, dated 03-07-2025 in MACMA No.1111 of 2005, the payment of deficit Court fee is deleted as per the Court Order dated 28-08-2025 made in lA No.1 of 2025 in MACMA No.1111 of 2005.

¶141

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶142

HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025

¶143

28/08/2025

¶144

AMENDED JUDGMENT AND DECREE

¶145

MACMA NO. 1111 OF 2005

¶146

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

Jonnada Mariyamma and 3 Others v. Y.Sankara Rao and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jonnada Mariyamma and 3 Others v. Y.Sankara Rao and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ganga Naik Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B Somaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B.V. Ramana Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppisetti Venkateswara Rao Vs Rayapuredy Venkata Rao and 2 Others

Banka Kondaiah Vs Manne Subba Rao & 2 Ors.

Siddavatam Linga Reddy Vs Sri K. Mohan & Another