Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Devandla Siva Kumari, Guntur Dist And 4 … vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Corp.Hyd … on 20 June, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.124 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied by the award and decree dated 15.09.2016 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.150 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III
Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”), where under a
compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- was awarded as against the claim made for
Rs.5,50,000/-, claimants therein preferred the present appeal.
2. The Respondents herein are the Respondents before the learned MACT.
3. Case of claimants in brief is that one Devandla Rama Lingam (hereinafter
referred to as “the deceased”) while proceeding on his motor cycle between the
Gurazala and Rentachintala road, near Ramakrishnapuram outskirts
A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 852 (for short “the offending vehicle”)
driven by its driver (Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT) came in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. With the result,
accident occurred and the deceased died on the spot due to head injury.
4. A case in crime No.192 of 2014 was registered against the driver of the
offending vehicle for the offences under 304-A of IPC and subsequently charge
sheet was laid against him.
2
5. The deceased was hale and healthy; aged about „38‟ years; owning
agricultural land, used to engage in cultivation of his own land in an extent of
Ac.4.00 and thereby earning Rs.60,000/- per annum and he was contributing his
entire income to the family. Due to his sudden death, the claimants lost all sorts
of support. Hence, entitled for a just and reasonable compensation.
6. The driver of the offending vehicle is Respondent No.2 before the learned
MACT remained ex parte.
7. Case of Respondent No.1 / A.P.S.R.T.C in brief is that the claimants shall
prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle,
death of the deceased due to the accident, age, occupation and income of the
deceased, dependency of the claimants and all other relevant factors for
justifying the compensation claimed.
8. Negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motor cycle is also the
cause for the accident. Therefore, either the negligence totally or atleast
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased shall be counted in imposing
and quantifying the liability.
9. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by
the learned MACT:
1.) Whether Devandla Rama Lingam died in the accident on 23.08.2014
due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP
29Z 852?
3
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount,
and against whom?
3) To what relief?
10. Evidence before the learned MACT:
Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: Devandla Siva Kumari Wife of the
deceased.
P.W.2: M. Sambaiah Eye witness to the
accident.
R.W.1: Shaik Jani Driver of the
offending vehicle
Documentary Ex.A1: Certified Copy of FIR in On behalf of the
evidence Cr.No.192/14 of Gurazala PS., petitioner(s).
Ex.A2:Certified Copy of charge
sheet in C.C.175/2014 of II
Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Gurazala.
Ex.A3:Certified Copy of Motor
Vehicles Inspector report.
Ex.A4: Certified Copy of Inquest
Report.
Ex.A5:Certified Copy of
postmortem Report
Ex.B1: Rough Sketch On behalf of the
Respondent(s)
Findings of the learned MACT:
11. PW.1, the wife of the deceased though deposed about the accident etc.
she is not an eye witness to the accident. However, PW.2-an eye witness to the
accident supported all material particulars supplied by the claimants and
4
deposed by PW.1. Crime record covered by Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-Charge sheet
are corroborating the version of the claimants. The evidence of RW.1, the driver
of the offending vehicle that, when he was going on left side and the driver of the
motor cycle was negligent is of no help to the respondents. In view of the
evidence of PW.2 and prosecution launched against Respondent No.2, the driver
of the offending vehicle, the negligence stands proved.
12. The relationship of the claimants and the deceased is not in serious
dispute. The income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, at
Rs.100/- per day and the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,05,000/- under the head
of loss of dependency. Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/-
towards funeral expenditure and other expenditure. Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate.
In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.4,30,000/-.
Arguments in the appeal:
For the Claimants:
13. It is submitted for the claimants that there is no appeal by the Respondents
/ A.P.S.R.T.C. Hence the negligence etc. aspects are out of dispute and the
income taken by the learned MACT is very low. Even future prospects are not
added. Therefore, the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable and it is
settled law that the learned MACT awarded just and reasonable compensation,
even if it is more than what is claimed by the claimants and that there is no bar
for appellate Court to award more compensation even in the absence of appeal
5
by the claimants. But, in the present case, the claimants are before this
appellate Court and that there is no appeal by the Respondents.
For the Respondents:
14. The compensation already awarded is on high side. A.P.S.R.T.C. is a
public institution. The negligence of the deceased can be considered at any
stage even by this appellate Court and apportionment of negligence shall be
made in the facts and circumstances of the case. In any view of the matter, there
are no grounds to interfere in the appeal and this appeal is fit to be dismissed
with costs.
15. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments
advanced by the both sides.
16. Since there is no appeal by the A.P.S.R.T.C. / the Respondents before the
learned MACT, the occurrence of accident, death of the deceased due to the
accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle etc. are out of the
scope of consideration in this appeal.
17. The point require consideration is the quantum of compensation to which
the claimants are entitled and the sufficiency of compensation awarded by the
learned MACT.
18. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
6
1) Whether the compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- awarded by the learned
MACT is just and reasonable or whether any interference is necessary
by way of enhancement if so, to what tune?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
Quantum of Compensation:
Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims
arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:-
a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation:
19.(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.1 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:
1. Age of the deceased.
2. Income of the deceased.
3. Number of dependents.
19.(ii). Hon‟ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the
compensation, they are:
1
2009 (6) SCC 121
7Step 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.
Step No.2:
Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided
and table is provided in judgment itself.
Step No.3:
Calculation of the compensation.
Final Step:
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.
b) Adding of future prospects:
20(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others2 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.
2
2017(16) SCC 680
820(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.
c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium:
21. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable
compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and
Others3, 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.
d) Just Compensation:
22. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others4, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows:
10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in
excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the3
(2018) 18 SCC 130
4
(2013) 9 SCC 54
9Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in
this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,
(2003) 2 SCC 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 other limitation or
restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.”
The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance
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 Insurance Co.
Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
1213]
11. 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 not face the
vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned
by the victim.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are
otherwise entitled:-
23. 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 it proper to refer the following
observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in:
10
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others5, at para 21 of the
judgment, that –
“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation
amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is
to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence
produced on record.”
(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.6 at para 33 of the judgment, as
follows:-
“33. 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 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.”
(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
Others7 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
“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 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,5
(2003) 2 SCC 274
6
2020 (04) SCC 413
7
(2019) 2 SCC 192
11there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The
courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.”
Analysis of Evidence:
24. The contention of the claimants that the deceased owning Ac.4.00 land
and getting Rs.60,000/- income per annum. The arguments of the A.P.S.R.T.C.
are that land holding is that there is no determinant to the income, the same land
will devolve on the claimants. However, it is relevant to note that they will be loss
of experienced management of the land. The evidence available on record.
Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet, Ex.A3-MVI Report, Ex.A4-Inquest Report and
Ex.A5-Postmortem Report are all touching the accident, death of deceased etc.
but they are not indicating anything about the income.
25. Evidence of PW.1 is self-serving and she is the wife. During cross-
examination of PW.1, it is elicited that her husband used to do cultivation of own
land and also leased land. PW.1 used to extend assistance along with
father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are claimant Nos.4 and 5.
26. It was also suggested to her that the income out of the lands held is
sufficient for maintenance of herself and other claimants. There can be no
answer for absence of deceased and his services in respect of agricultural
operations in the lands held by the family. Income taken at Rs.3,000/- by the
learned MACT can be considered as very low and the same can be taken at
Rs.5,000/- per month inclusive of future prospects. Whereby, the annual income
12
comes to Rs.60,000/- and on deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenditure of
the deceased, the contribution comes to Rs.45,000/- and the same can be
considered as multiplicand. For the age group of „38‟ years, multiplier applicable
is „15‟. When the same is applied, the entitlement of claimants for compensation
comes to Rs.6,75,000/- (Rs.45,000/-x15). All the claimants are entitled for loss
of consortium which comes to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 5) and they are also
entitled for funeral expenditure at Rs.15,000/-. Loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-.
Accordingly, the compensation awarded under those heads is required to be
enhanced.
27. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and
evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable
compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is
as follows:
Sl. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
No. learned MACT Appellate
Court
1. Loss
1 of dependency Rs.4,05,000/- Rs.6,75,000/-
.
2. Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- @
each claimant:
40,000x5)
3. Funeral and other Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-
expenses
4. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total: Rs.4,30,000 /- Rs.9,05,000/-
13
28. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the entitlement of
claimants for compensation is found at Rs.9,05,000/-. Accordingly, Point No.1 is
answered in favour of the appellants/ the claimants, concluding that the claimants
are entitled for Rs.9,05,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and the impugned
decree and award require modification accordingly.
Point No.2:
29. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of Point No.1, Point
No.2 is answered as follows:
In the result,
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.4,30,000/- is
modified and enhanced to Rs.9,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) Claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.4,05,000/- with proportionate interest
and total costs.
(iv) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / Children are entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- each
with proportionate interest and costs.
(v) Claimant Nos.4 and 5 / Parents of the deceased are entitled for
Rs.1,00,000/- each.
14
(vi) Claimant Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on
deposit.
(vii) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / Minors are entitled to withdraw the awarded
compensation amount on attaining majority subject to the necessary
recognition as majors and permission by the learned MACT as per the law.
(viii) The compensation amount awarded shall be deposited within a period
of six (06) weeks from now, after adjusting the amount if any already
deposited.
(ix) Claimants shall pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the
compensation, before the learned MACT.
(x) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:20.06.2025
Knr
15
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A No.124 of 2017
20th June, 2025
Knr