Apsrtc, Rep.by Its Gm, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Vs Mukkamala Govindamma and Another

¶1

APHC010443362017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1307 of 2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its General Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (Owner of Bus No.AP 10 Z 9162) ...Appellant/Respondent

¶8

AND

¶9

Mukkamala Govindamma, W/o Gurava Reddy, R/o Munagodu Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District.

¶10

(R-1 restored in vide Court Order dated 27.01.2016 in MACMA MP No.407of2016)

¶11

Mukkamala Gurava Reddy, S/o Narsi Reddy, R/o Munagodu Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Appeal filed under Section T73 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 27-10-2009 passed in MVOP.No.1521 of 2008 on the^file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶14

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant, Sri Kommareddy^Divakara

¶15

Reddy, Advocate for Responderit No.1 and None Appeared for Respondent No.2.

¶16

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶17

That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed;

¶18

That the compensation awarded by the MACT at Rs.3,08,000/-^with interest at the rate of 7% per annum under the impugned^decreeand order dated 27.10.2009 be and is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.4,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶19

That Claimant No.1 / mother of the deceased be and is hereby entitled for Rs.2,84,000/- with proportionate interest and costs;

¶20

That Claimant No.2 / father of the deceased be and is hereby entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate interest;

¶21

That the claimants be and are hereby entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit;

¶22

That time for deposit of balance compensation amount is two months;

¶23

That Claimants be and are hereby directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the MACT;

¶24

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

¶25

//TRUE COPY//

¶26

Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶27

To

¶28

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge Guntur, Guntur District.

¶29

Two CD Copies

TK

HIGH COURT

DATED:22/08/2025

DECREE

MACMA No.1307of 2017

a ItSEP2U«
rrentS4iCti«jL

¶36

DISMISSING THE MACMA

¶37

'OHC010443362017

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI

¶39

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶42

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1307 of²⁰¹⁷

¶43

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved^{bytheDecreeand} Judgment dated 27-10-2009 passed in MVOP.No.1521 of^{2008onthefileof} the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District^{Judge,Guntur,} Guntur District.

¶44

Between:

¶45

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by^its General Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (Owner of Bus No.AP^10Z9162)

¶46

...Appellant/Respondent

¶47

AND

¶48

Mukkamala Govindamma, W/o Gurava Reddy, R/o Munagodu^Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District.

¶49

(R-1 restored in vide Court Order dated 27.01.2016^inMACMAMP No.407 of 2016)

¶50

Mukkamala Gurava Reddy, S/o Narsi Reddy, R/o Munagodu^Village Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District.

¶51

...Respondents

¶52

lA NO: 4 OF 2012(MACMAMP 314 OF 2012)

¶53

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in decree and order dated 27/10/2009 in M/OP.No.1521 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur.

¶54

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for Respondent No.1; Sri Kommareddy Divakara Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2; None Appeared

¶55

The Court made the following order:

¶56

1

¶57

APHC010443362017

¶58

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3520] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶59

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1307/2017

¶62

Between:

¶63

1.APSRTC, REP.BY ITS GM, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD., REP.BY GENERAL MANAGER OWNER OF BUS NO.AP 10 Z 9162 MUSHEERABAD^ HYDERABAD

¶64

...APPELLANT

¶65

AND

¶66

1.MUKKAMALA GOVINDAMMA AND ANOTHER, W/0 GURAVA REDDY R/0 MUNAGODU VILLAGE AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶67

2.MUKKAMALA GURAVA REDDY, S/0 NARSI REDDY R/0 MUNAGODU VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶68

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶69

Counsel for the Appellant;

¶70

1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC

¶71

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶72

1.KOMMAREDDY DIVAKARA REDDY

¶73

The Court made the following:

¶74

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶75

M.A.C.M.A.No.1307 of 2017

¶76

JUDGMENT:

¶77

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the^{MotorVehiclesActbythe} respondent in M.V.O.P.No.1521 of 2008 on the file of^theChairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur^{(forshort“the} learned MACT”) questioning the order and decree dated^{27.10.2009astoliability} and quantification of compensation awarded in favour^{oftherespondentsherein.} 2. Respondents herein are the parents of one M. Lakshma Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died^{inthemotorvehicle/road} traffic accident, due to the involvement of bus bearing^{registrationNo.AP10Z} 9162. (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”)^{ownedbytheappellant} herein. Claim was made for Rs.4,00,000/- and the learned^{MACT waspleased} to award a compensation of Rs.3,08,000/-. 3. As per claimants, on 11.12.2008 at about 7:00 A.M.,^{whenthedeceased} was travelling on TVS Moped between Hussain Nagar and^Munagudu,the offending vehicle came from Byyaram Village side and^{dashedtheTVSMoped} causing the ghastly accident due to which the deceased^{sufferedinstantaneous} death. The deceased was unmarried, hale and healthy, aged about 22 years, earning Rs.200/- per day and he was the sole breadwinner^{forthefamily.His}

¶78

3

¶79

death exposed the claimants to untold misery. Hence,^{theyareentitledforjust} and reasonable compensation. 4. Claim was resisted by the appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C^{puttingtheclaimantsto} of the deceased and negligence of the strictly prove the age, occupation, income driver of the offending vehicle while attributing negligence^{tothedeceased.}

¶80

Learned MACT held the issue relating to the negligence in favour of the claimants by relying on the evidence of eye witness,^PW.2and FIR, Charge sheet, MVI report, inquest report and rough sketch of the^{sceneofoffenceetc.} and disbelieved the evidence of R.W.1 . the driver^{oftheoffendingvehicle,} 6. Further, the learned MACT, taken the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Accepted the annual income at Rs.36,000/- and deducted^{50%towardsthe} annum as his contribution for the personal expenditure, taken Rs. 18,000/- per family adopted the multiplier applicable to the mother of^{thedeceasedat‘16’and} accepted the loss of income or dependency at Rs.2,88,000/-. Additionally, of estate and Rs.5,000/towards awarded Rs.15,000/towards loss transportation of dead body and funeral expenditure. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows;

¶81

Compensation towards loss of income or dependency	Rs.2,88,000/-
Compensation towards loss to the estate	Rs.15,000/-
Compensation towards transportation charges of the ^dead bodv to the house and funeral expenses Total	Rs.5,000/- Rs.3,08,000/-

¶82

Extensive arguments submitted by both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. Arguments in the appeal-

¶83

For the appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C.:

¶84

8(i). Learned MACT failed to note that there IS no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle,

¶85

(ii). Learned MACT erred in taking income at Rs.3000/per month without sufficient evidence,

¶86

(iii). Quantification of compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- is baseless,

¶87

(iv). Awarding of interest at 7% is excessive.

¶88

For the claimants:

¶89

9(i). Evidence of P.W.2 i IS sufficient to believe the negligence. Reasoning^ofthe learned MACT as to negligence is justified.' The claim was laid under Section 163-A, therefore, the involvement of the motor vehicle in the accident is sufficient to accept the entitlement of claimants and liability of the tortfeasor and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶90

(II). Learned MACT ought to have adopted the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased but not the mother of the deceased,

¶91

(iii). Learned MACT ought to have taken the income at Rs.200/- per day as claimed and ought to have added future prospects to the income adopted.

¶92

5

¶93

The points that arise for determination in this appeal^are:

¶94

Whether the pleaded accident dated 11.12.2008 has^{occurreddueto} the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether there was contributory negligence of the deceased?

¶95

Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation^and if so, whether the compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.3,08,000/- is just and reasonable or requires any^{interferenceeitherby} way of reduction or enhancement?

¶96

What is the result of the appeal?

¶97

Point No.1:

¶98

P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. FIR, charge^{sheetandother} crime records indicating the involvement of the offending^{vehicleanditsdriver.} 12. R.W.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, did not dispute about the involvement of the vehicle or he being a driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time.

¶99

As per the Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,^{1988,underwhichthe} claim is laid, involvement of the vehicle is enough. As per A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, Rule 476(7) for entertaining a claim for compensation,^{thecrimerecord} like FIR, inquest etc., are sufficient.

¶100

Further, there is no any convincing evidence to consider the contributory negligence, if any, of the deceased. In this factual,^{legalandlogicalscenario,the}

¶101

6

¶102

objection of the appellant on the findings of the learned MACT as to negligence found not tenable. Hence point framed is answered against the appellant / A.P.S.R.T.C. and in favour of the claimants as to negligence.

¶103

Point No.2:

¶104

Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:-

¶105

a) Adoption of Multiplier. Multiplicand and Calculation:

¶106

15(i). Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency inir. awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.^ vide paragraph Nos. 18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following:

¶107

Age of the deceased.

¶108

Income of the deceased.

¶109

Number of dependents.

¶110

15(ii). Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are:

2009 (6) see 121

7

Step No.1:

Ascertain the multiplicand, which'shall be the income^{ofthedeceasedhe/} she should have contributed to the dependents and the^{samecanbearrived} after deducting certain part of personal living expenses^{ofthedeceased.}

¶115

Step No.2:

¶116

Ascertaining Multiplier with reference to the age of^thedeceased. This shall be as per the table provided in judgment itself.

¶117

Step No.3:

¶118

Calculation of the compensation.

¶119

Final Step:

¶120

After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport. cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased^{beforethedeathetc.are} advised.

¶121

b) Adding of future prospects:

¶122

16(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation,^{theHon’bleApex} Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay^{SethiandOthers^case} guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of^{permanentemployment,50%} where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased^is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years.

¶123

^2017(16) see 680

¶124

8

¶125

16(ii). The actual salary to be taken shall 'be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case.

¶126

c)_Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium:

¶127

Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others^,

¶128

Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium,

¶129

d) Just Compensation:

¶130

In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others'^, the Hon'ble Supreme

¶131

Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows;

¶132

Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising^for considerationⁱⁿ this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,

¶133

^2018) 18 see 130 ^ (2013) 9 see 54

¶134

9

¶135

(2003) 2 see 274 : 2003 See (eh) 523 : AIR 2003 SC^674] , it was held as follows: (See p. 280) "10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the eiaims Tribunal^to‘make an award determining the amount of compensation which^appearstoit to be just’. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘just’. There is no^{otherlimitationor} restriction on its power for awarding just compensation. ’’ The principle was followed in the later decisions in^{OrientalInsurance} Co. Ltd. V. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCO 280 : (2009)² SCO^(Civ)877 : (2009) 2 see (Cri) 987j and in Ningamma v. United India^InsuranceCo. Ltd. [(2009) 13 see 710 : (2009) 5 SCO (Civ) 241 :⁽²⁰¹⁰⁾ 1 SCO (Cri) 1213]

¶136

Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions^iswithregard to the duty of the court to fix -a just compensation^and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be^to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should^notface the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of^{theincomeearned} by the victim.

¶137

Awarding more compensation than what claimed and awarding compensation to the claimants even in the absence of^{anyappealorcross} objections by the claimants require examination.

¶138

e) Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal:

¶139

20(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in^{theabsenceofanappeal} or cross appeal by the claimant. The legal position as^to powers^{oftheAppellate} Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in^{termsofSection} 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by^{thelearnedMACTunder} challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and^baror , prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation^{andawardingjust} and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any^appeal or cross

¶140

10

¶141

objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others^ i n M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows;

¶142

In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to Just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.

¶143

20(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (5 supra) case

¶144

are in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Courtⁱⁿ Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others®.

¶145

20(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (6 supra) case, in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim corripensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation IS awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where

¶146

^ 2023 see Online AP 1725

¶147

®(2021) 16 see 467

¶148

11

¶149

the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on. the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations^aremade.

¶150

f) Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are

¶151

otherwise entitled:-

¶152

The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation^thanwhat claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation^{thanwhatisclaimed.} For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in:

¶153

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others^, at para 21 of the

¶154

judgment, that-

¶155

“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of^{theTribunal/Courtis} to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on^{thebasisofevidence} produced on record.”

¶156

(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.® at para 33 of the judgment, as

¶157

follows:-

¶158

“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is^{morethantheamount} claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor."

¶159

(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company^Limitedand

¶160

Others^ at para 5 of the judgment, as follows;-

¶161

' (2003) 2 see 274 ‘2020(04) see 413

¶162

12

¶163

“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than^{thesameasmentioned} supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of^the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on^thebasisof evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. ”

¶164

Analysis of Evidence:

¶165

P.W.1 stated that the deceased was aged ‘20’ years and he was working as an agricultural coolie. There cannot be any documentary^{evidenceastothe} occupation as a labourer. The date of accident is 11.12.2008. 23. Upon considering the socio-economic circumstances of the year 2008, price index and minimum wages etc., in terms of the National Floor Level Minimum Wage revised with effect from 01.09.2007, the daily wage acceptable was fixed at around Rs.80/- and the all-India average daily wage for unskilled labour was around Rs.60/- to Rs.70/-.

¶166

Upon adding of 30-40% towards future prospects, the income of the deceased can be accepted at Rs.lOO/- which the learned MACT has rightly adopted. Deduction of 50% towards the personal expenditure is also proper.

¶167

With regard to adoption of multiplier, learned MACT ought to have adopted the multiplier ‘18’ applicable to the age of the deceased instead of adopting the

¶168

® (2019) 2 see 192

¶169

13

¶170

multiplier ‘16’ applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased as righty argued.

¶171

In the light of the precedential guidance and in view of the reason and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows:

¶172

SI. No.	Head	Granted by the learned MACT	Fixed by this Appellate Court
1.	Loss of income or dependency	Rs.2,88,000/-	Rs.3,24,000/- (Rs.18,000/-X 18)
2.	Loss of consortium	-Nil-	Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- @ each claimant: Rs.4Q,000.'-,k2)
3.	Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Transportation charges and funeral expenses	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
	Total:	Rs.3,08,000 /-	Rs.4,34,000/-

¶173

For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the

¶174

point framed is answered in favour of the claimants, concluding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- and the impugned order and decree dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.1521 of 2008 require modification accordingly.

¶175

14

¶176

Point No.3:

¶177

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However,

¶178

(i). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.3,08,000/- with

¶179

interest at the rate of 7% per annum under the impugned^{decreeandorder} dated 27.10.2009 is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,34,000/-^withinterest

¶180

at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition^{tillthedateof} realization.

¶181

(ii). Claimant No.1 / mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.2,84,000/- with proportionate interest and costs.

¶182

(iii). Claimant No.2 / father of the deceased is entitled for Rs. 1,50,000/- with proportionate interest.

¶183

(iv). The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on deposit. (v). Time for deposit of balance compensation amount^istwomonths. (vi). Claimants shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT.

¶184

(vii). There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal.

¶185

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall

¶186

stand closed.

¶187

To

¶188