Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
K.Rehana Anr vs P.Balaram 2 Others on 16 April, 2025
APHC010473442014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
3165/2014
Between:
K.rehana & Anr and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
P Balaram 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. P PRABHAKAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S AGASTYA SHARMA
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the legal
representatives of the deceased preferred this Appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award
dated 09.04.2014 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge,
Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in
M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2010.
2. Heard arguments of Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, the learned
counsel for appellants and Sri S.Agastya Sarma, the learned
counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
3. The following facts are required to be noticed:
Sri Konda Venkata Ramana aged 37 years was an
Assistant Manager in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. On
21.10.2009 he was travelling in a Tata Indica Car bearing
registration No.AP-16-TV-6962 and at about 4:00 P.M. near Siva
3
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014Sai Kshetram, Kanchikacherla a lorry bearing registration No.
AP-16-W-0088 came in the opposite direction rashly or
negligently and dashed the car. In this collision Sri Konda
Venkata Ramana died. His wife and minor daughter filed
M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs.48,30,000/-. The driver
of the offending lorry was shown as respondent No.1, the owner
of the offending lorry was shown as respondent No.2 and the
insurer was shown as respondent No.3. Before the Claims
Tribunal the driver and owner did not choose to appear and
contest. The insurance company filed its counter stating that it
was the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling
who was at fault and non-impleadment of driver, owner and
insurer of Indica Car was fatal. That the driver of the offending
lorry did not have a valid driving licence. That excess
compensation was claimed. It prayed for dismissal of the claim.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for
trial:
4
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
1) Whether the deceased viz., Konda Venkata
Ramana was died in a motor vehicle accident
occurred on 21.10.2009 at 4 p.m. at Siva Sai
Kshetram, Kanchikacherla, due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Oil Tanker
bearing No.AP-16-W-0088?
2) What is the correct age and income of the
deceased by the date of accident?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the
compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and
to what amount?
4) To what relief?
5. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and
Exs.X.1 and X.2 and Ex.B.1-insurance policy were placed for
consideration before the Claims Tribunal.
6. After a detailed analysis of the evidence, the learned
Claims Tribunal found that the subject matter accident was
reported to police, and they registered Crime No.189 of 2009 and
issued Ex.A.1-F.I.R. wherein the allegations were against the
driver of the offending lorry. After considering the direct evidence
of PW.2 who witnessed the incident and recording that there was
5
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
no contrary evidence placed on record by respondent No.3-
insurance company, it concluded saying that the death of
Sri Konda Venkata Ramana was out of rash or negligent driving
of offending lorry by its driver and there was no fault on part of the
driver of the Indica Car. It further considered Exs.X.1 and X.2
which disclosed about the gross and net salary particulars of the
deceased and held that the deceased was earning Rs.2,01,501/-
per year. Considering that he was employed in a private bank, it
thought it fit to add Rs.50,000/- per year towards his future
prospects. Thus, the multiplicand was arrived at Rs.2,51,500/-.
Following the ruling of their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1
and considering the age of the deceased as 37 years it applied
multiplier ’15’. Since there were only two dependents, it deducted
1/3rd of the annual income towards possible personal expenses of
the deceased. Thus, it granted Rs.25,15,035/- and stated that it
was towards loss of estate. Towards loss of consortium
Rs.10,000 and towards funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- were
1
(2009) 6 SCC 121
6
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
granted. Thus, total compensation of Rs.25,30,035/- was
granted. It recorded findings that the driver of the offending lorry
had a valid and effective driving licence and as per Ex.B.1, the
insurance policy was in force by the time of accident. It passed
the award in the following terms:
“In the result, the petition is allowed in PART,
awarding total compensation of Rs.25,30,035/-(Rupees
twenty five lakhs thirty thousand and thirty five only) in
favour of the petitioners and against the respondents
together with proportionate costs of the petition and with
subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of
the petition till date of realisation;
ii) that the 3rd respondent, who indemnified 2nd
respondent, is directed to deposit the entire amount in the
Court within one month from the date of this order;
iii) that the 1st petitioner being the wife of deceased
is entitled Rs.10,30,035/- towards her share;
iv) that the 2nd petitioner being minor daughter of the
deceased is entitled Rs.15,00,000/- towards her share;
v) that on such deposit made by R.3, the 1st
petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with
accrued interest thereon and costs;
7
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
vi) that the 2nd petitioner share amount shall be kept
in FDR in State Bank of Hyderabad, Civil Courts
compound, Vijayawada till she attained majority;
vii) that the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the
interest on the FDR of 2nd petitioner every year for welfare
of the 2nd petitioner;
viii) that the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees five thousand only).”
7. Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the present
appeal is preferred.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned
Claims Tribunal committed an error as it failed to grant adequate
compensation under conventional heads and further
inappropriate rate of interest was granted though by the relevant
time the nationalized banks were awarding 9% interest.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company
fervently argued that the findings of the Claims Tribunal are in
accordance with facts and law and granting 7.5% interest is only
in tune with the rulings of this Court and there is no merit in the
appeal and prays for dismissal of it.
8
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
10. The points that fall for consideration in this appeal are:
1. Whether under the conventional heads the impugned
award failed to grant compensation in accordance
with law?
2. Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to 9%
interest?
POINT Nos.1 and 2:
11. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi2, towards the conventional heads their Lordships held as
below:
Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Consortium - Rs.40,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/-
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
9
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
12. In the case at hand, towards loss of dependency the
Claims Tribunal arrived at Rs.25,15,035/-. As per the statute, the
Tribunal is supposed to grant further amount towards loss of
estate. However, the Claims Tribunal did not grant anything
towards loss of estate but mentioned the loss of dependency as
loss of estate. Towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses
a total amount of Rs.15,000/- alone was granted. Since the same
is not in tune with law and the precedent an additional amount of
Rs.55,000/- is granted under these conventional heads.
13. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as
below:
“171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.–
Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for
compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may
direct that in addition to the amount of compensation
simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from
such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as
it may specify in this behalf.”
14. The accident and the resultant death took place on
21.10.2009. The Claims Tribunal awarded 7.5% interest.
According to the learned counsel for appellants/claimants, 9%
10
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
interest was prevalent by then. That seems to be correct.
Therefore, 9% interest is awarded. Both the points are answered
accordingly.
15. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the
compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 09.04.2014
of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in
M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2010 from Rs.25,30,035/- to Rs.25,85,035/-
with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realisation. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable
to pay the compensation. The third respondent-Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit
to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the
Claims Tribunal. On such a deposit, the appellants/claimants are
entitled to withdraw the same as per their entitlement mentioned
in the award of the Claims Tribunal along with costs and accrued
interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this
appeal.
11
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 16.04.2025
Ivd
12
Dr. VRKS, J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2014
Date: 16.04.2025
Ivd