Dr.Tata Sambasiva Rao Vs M.Ravi Kumar

Tata Lakshmi Sailaja, D/o.Sambasivarao, Medical Officer, PIMS Sidhardha Medical College Hospital, Hindu, 32 years, D.No.29-10-31, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

¶13

Tata Mohan Vamsi Krishna, Student, Hindu, 29 years, D.No.29-10-31, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

¶14

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶15

AND

¶16

M.Ravi Kumar, S/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, 39 years, Lorry Owner bearing No.AP 7W 4658, D.No.6-93-3, Church Road, Gannavaram, Krishna District.

¶17

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, rep. by its Divisional Manager, M.G.Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada-10.

¶18

...Respondents/Respondents

¶19

0'

¶20

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree dated 21.03.2012 passed in MVOP No.179 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶21

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 B.G.Uma Devi, Advocate for Appellants, and of Sri Amancharla Satish Babu Advocate for Respondent No.2 and none appeared for Respondent No.1.

¶22

THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

¶23

That the Appeal be and the same hereby is allowed;

¶24

That the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims

¶25

Tribunal at Rs.7,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum

¶26

under the impugned decree and order dated 21.03.2012 be and

¶27

hereby is modified and enhanced to Rs. 17,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization:

¶28

That Claimant No. 1/father of the deceased is entitled for Rs.5,30,000/with proportionate interest and costs;

¶29

That Claimant No.2/mother of the deceased is entitled for

¶30

Rs. 10,00,000/- with proportionate interest and costs;

¶31

That Claimant Nos.3 and 4/sister and brother of the deceased are

¶32

entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest;

¶33

That on deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at

¶34

once;

¶35

That Respondent Nos.1 and 2 be and hereby are jointly and

¶36

severally liable;

¶37

That in view of the Insurance Policy, Respondent No.1 be and hereby

¶38

is liable;

¶39

That the excessive withdrawals, ‘ if any, be and hereby are adjusted from

¶40

the amount payable among the claimants;

¶41

That claimants be and hereby are directed to pay the Court fee for

¶42

the enhanced part of the compensation, before the Motor Accidents

¶43

Claims Tribunal;

¶44

11.That time for deposit be and hereby is fixed two months; and 12. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal.

¶45

¶46

Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District

¶51

Two CD Copies

\ \

i.

**

BSV

HIGH COURT

AHHS,J

DATED:14/08/2025

DECREE

MACMA NO. 1555 OF 2012

¶61

OF
/O v:'
C3
^9^ 2 5 SEP 2025
'"^^9 ::;r

¶62

ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

APHC011552572012

¶64

n 0 k u

¶65

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUS-g {|«l ■D TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶66

PRESENT

¶67

THE honourable SRI JUSTICE A. hari haranadha sarma

¶68

MOTOR ACCIDENT C|V|L MISCFI I ampoik^ APPEAL NO: 155.5 r>F

¶69

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree dated 21.03.2012 passed in MVOP No. 179 of 2008 on the file ofthe Motor vehicles Accidents Cairns Tribuna.-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶70

Between;

¶71

1- Dr.Tata Sambasiva Rao S/o.T.Govindarajulu, aged about 62 years.

¶72

D.No.29-10-31, Hindu, Suryaraopet Vijayawada.

¶73

Tata Anuradha Mani, W/o.Tata Sambasivarao, Housewife, 53 years. D.No.29-10-31, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

¶74

Tata Lakshmi Sailaja, D/o.Sambasivarao, Medical Officer, PIMS

¶75

Sidhardha Medical College Hospital Hindu, 32 years, D.No.29-10-31

¶76

Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

¶77

Tata Mohan Vamsi Krishna, Student. Hindu, 29 years, D.No.29-10-31,

¶78

Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

¶79

••■Appellants/Petitioners

¶80

AND

¶81

M.Ravi Kumar, S/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, 39 years. Lorry Owner bearing No.AP 7W 4658, D.No.6-93-3, Church Road, Gannavaram, Krishna District.

¶82

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, rep. by its Divisional Manager, M.G.Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada-10.

¶83

...Respondents/Respondents

¶84

Counsel for the Appellants: Smt B.G.Uma Devi

¶85

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appeared

¶86

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:Sri Amancharla Satish Babu The Court made the following:

1

[3520]

APHC011552572012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶91

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶92

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶93

PRESENT

¶94

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:1555/2012

¶95

Between:

¶96

DR.TATA SAMBASIVA RAO, SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA

¶97

2.TATA ANURADHA MANI, SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA

¶98

i

¶99

TATA LAKSHMI SAILAJA, SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA

¶100

TATA MOHAN VAMSI KRISHNA, SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA

¶101

...APPELLANT(S)

¶102

AND

¶103

M RAVI KUMAR, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA

¶104

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, VIJAYAWADA

¶105

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶106

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶107

1.B G UMA DEVI

¶108

2..

¶109

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶110

1.AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU

¶111

2.M Ravi Kumar (Respondent 1)

¶112

The Court made the following:

¶113

2

¶114

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶115

M.A.C.M.A.No.1555 of 2012

¶116

JUDGMENT;

¶117

Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.179 of 2008, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the decree and order dated 21.03.2012, whereby their claim was partly allowed by granting a compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- as against the claim^{madeforRs.10,00,000/-,} filed the present appeal.

¶118

i

¶119

Claim is arising out of the death of one Tata Srinivasa Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident^that occurred on 02.11.2007. While the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle, the lorry bearing No.AP 7 W 4568 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) dashed against the motorcycle from behind in a rash and negligent^{manner,whichhas} led to death of deceased on the spot.

¶120

Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, claimant Nos.3^{isunmarriedsister} and claimant No.4 is elder brother of the deceased.

¶121

Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company.

¶122

Claim was resisted on the ground of compliance of conditions of policy and excessive nature of compensation by the Insurance Company. The owner of the offending vehicle viz. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 6. Learned MACT held the issue relating to negligence in favour of the claimants by referring to the FIR in Crime No.234 of 2007 vide Ex.A1, post mortem report-Ex.A2, Inquest Report-Ex.A3 and the oral evidence of P.W.2 an eye witness to the accident, who found the offending vehicle hitting the motorcycle coming from behind and also referring that the offending vehicle ran over the head of the deceased, causing instantaneous death. 7. With regard to entitlement of claimants, referring to the relationship etc., found that they are entitled for compensation. While quantifying the compensation, learned MACT found that the deceased was studying III year M.B.B.S. and the college fee receipts indicating Rs.2,09,600/-. 8. The income of the deceased was taken at Rs. 15,000/- per month by the learned MACT, 50% was deducted towards personal expenditure multiplier applicable to the age of 1®' claimant, father of the deceased 60’ years was applied. Accordingly, the compensation can be awarded at Rs.7 20 000/ - was awarded under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure. In all, award was passed for Rs.7,30,000/-.

¶123

4

¶124

This appeal is filed by the claimants. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company. In the context of the appeal and from the arguments advanced, it is clear that the accident, negligence, death of the deceased due to accident. entitlement of the claimants for compensation and liability of the respondents to pay the same are all out of dispute.

¶125

Arguments in the appeal:

¶126

For the claimants / appellants:

¶127

(i) Learned MACT erred in adopting the multiplier applicable to the father of the claimant.

¶128

(ii) Learned MACT failed to award compensation under^allheads.

¶129

(iii) The income should have been adopted at more than Rs. 15,000/-

¶130

(iv) Future prospects are not added. .

¶131

For the insurance Company:

¶132

11 .(i) Compensation already awarded is excessive.

¶133

(ii) There are no grounds to interfere.

¶134

The only point under dispute is as to what is the just^and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Therefore, the points that

¶135

arise for consideration in this appeal are:

¶136

What is the just and reasonable compensation to^{whichtheclaimants} are entitled and whether the compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- awarded by

¶137

5

¶138

the learned MACT is proper or requires any interference, and if so, to what extent?

¶139

What is the result of the appeal?

¶140

Point No.1:

¶141

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

¶142

Adoption of Multiplier. Multiplicand and Calculation:

¶143

13(i). Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in 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;

¶144

Age of the deceased.

¶145

Income of the deceased.

¶146

Number of dependents.

¶147

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

2009 (6) see 121

6

Step No.1:

Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased.

¶152

Step No.2:

¶153

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

¶154

Step No.3:

¶155

Calculation of the compensation.

¶156

Final Step:

¶157

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 before the death etc . are advised.

¶158

b) Adding of future prospects:

¶159

14(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others^ case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 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.

¶160

^2017(16) see 680

¶161

7

¶162

14(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.

¶163

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

¶164

i

¶165

Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation

¶166

in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others^, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse^{butalsotothechildrenand} parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium.

¶167

d) Just Compensation:

¶168

In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others'^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows:

¶169

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

¶170

^(2018) 18 see 130 '‘(2013) 9 see 54

¶171

8

¶172

(2003) 2 see 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal^to‘make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be Just’. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘just’. There is no^{otherlimitation} or 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 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India^InsuranceCo. Ltd. [(2009) 13 see 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213]

¶173

Underlying principle discussed In the above decisions is with regard 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^notfacethe vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim.

¶174

¶175

The accident has taken place in the year 2007. Income adopted by the learned MACT is at Rs. 15,000/- per month. The contention^{thattheincome} taken at Rs. 15,000/- is excessive is on one side. Failure to add future prospects, on the other side, required to be considered and weighed with balancing approach. Upon taking note of socio economic circumstances of the year 2007 and background of the claimants, and the educational qualification of the deceased as he was studying 3’’'^ year MBBS, the Income adopted by the learned « MACT at Rs. 15,000/- cannot be found as excessive. However, the same can be found as inclusive of future prospects. Hence, the income adopted is found proper. The deduction of 50% towards personal expenditure,^{asthedeceased} died unmarried, is also found proper. The annual contribution of the deceased to

¶176

i.

¶177

9

¶178

the claimants comes to Rs.90,000/-, as rightly taken by learned MACT viz. which can be considered as multiplicand.

¶179

While adopting the multiplier, learned MACT erred in^{takingtheageofthe} father of the deceased. The deceased was a student and aged about ‘23’ years.

¶180

For the age group of the claimant / deceased, the multiplier^applicable is ‘18’. Therefore, the learned MACT should have adopted^thesame. Then, the entitlement of claimants for compensation under the^{headoflossofdependency} comes to Rs.16,20,600/-(Rs.90.000/- x 18). The parents are entitled for filial consortium for the death of deceased at Rs.40,000/-^{each.Further,theclaimants}

¶181

are entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenditure^{andRs.15,000/-towards} loss of estate, as per the settled law.

¶182

i

¶183

In the light of the precedential guidance and in view^{ofthereasonsand} evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to the compensation awarded^{bythelearnedMACT}

¶184

is as follows;

¶185

	Head	Compensation awarded by the learned MACT	Fixed by this Court
(i)	Loss of dependency	Rs.7,20,000/-	Rs. 16,20,000/-
(ii)	Loss of estate	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
(iii)	Loss of Consortium (towards filial consortium)	-Nil-	Rs.8O,0OO/- (@Rs.40,000/- each x 2)
(iv)	Funeral expenses	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
	Total compensation awarded	Rs.7,30,000/-	Rs.17,30,000/-
	Interest(perannum)	7.5%	7.5%

¶186

10

¶187

In view of the discussion made above, point No.1 is answered, concluding that the claimants are entitled fora compensation of Rs.17,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the findings of the learned MACT in awarding the compensation required interference and modified accordingly,

¶188

Grantinq of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimantc are

¶189

otherwise entitledr-

¶190

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

¶191

i.

¶192

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others®, at para 21 of the judgment, that-

¶193

“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation

¶194

amount exceeding the claimed amount, The function of the Tribunal/Court is

¶195

to award “just" compensation, which i IS reasonable on the basis of evidence

¶196

produced on record.”

¶197

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

¶198

We are aware that the amount awarded by us Is more than the amount claimed However, it is well settled law that in the motor accidertl claim

¶199

' (2003) 2 see 274 ^2020(04) see 413

¶200

11

¶201

petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be a warded especially where the claimant is a minor."

¶202

(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

¶203

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

¶204

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 the same as mentioned 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 the basis of 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. ”

¶205

Point No.2:

¶206

In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows;

¶207

(i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.7,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum under the impugned decree and order dated 21.03.2012 is modified and enhanced to Rs.17,30,000/- with / interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶208

(ii). Claimant No.1 / father of the deceased is entitled for Rs.5,30,000/- with proportionate interest and costs.

¶209

'(2019) 2 see 192

¶210

12

¶211

(iii). Claimant No.2 / mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs. 10,00,000/with proportionate interest and costs,

¶212