Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
National Insurance Company Limited, … vs Vankayalapati Padmavathi, Nellore … on 20 June, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.453 and 517 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Legal representatives of Poonati Malakondaiah (deceased No.1) and legal
representatives of Vankayalapati Naganjaneyulu (deceased No.2) moved the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District &
Sessions Judge (for short “the learned MACT”) claiming compensation for the
death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.
2. M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 was filed by legal representatives of deceased
No.1. M.VO.P.No.404 of 2014 was filed by legal representatives of deceased
No.2. Both matters were allowed-in-part by the learned MACT. Questioning the
liability and quantification of compensation awarded, Respondent No.2 / National
Insurance Company before the learned MACT filed M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2017
which is directed against the award and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.403 of
2014 and M.A.C.M.A.No.453 of 2017 which is directed against the award and
decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014.
3. Both the appeals are heard together. Same counsel represented for the
appellant and also the claimants. Owner of the Ambassador Car bearing
Registration No.AP 10 M 6886 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”)
is Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT and he is the Respondent No.4
2
before this Court. He remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Details of
both cases are as follows:
Sl. M.A.C.M.A. M.V.O.P. Name of the Claimants Claim made Amount
No. No. deceased / age for Awarded by
No. the learned
MACT
1. 517 of 2017 403 of 2014 Poonati 1.Poonati
Malakondaiah / Jayamma
(Old No.1212 Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.3,01,400/- @
of 2009) 61 years 2. Poonati
interest at 7.5%
(Deceased No.1) Kondapa Naidu
3. Poonati per annum
Thirumala Naidu
2. 453 of 2017 404 of 2014 Vankayalapati 1.Vankayalapati
(Old No.1213 Naganjaneyulu / Padmavathi
Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.4,47,000/- @
of 2009) 40 years 2.Vankayalapati
interest 7.5%
(Deceased No.2) Ajay Kumar
3.Vankayapati per annum
Kondamma
4. For the sake of convenience parties will be hereinafter referred to as the
claimants and the Respondents as and how they are arrayed in the impugned
proceedings.
5. The learned MACT has disposed of both the cases separately.
Case of claimants common in both the cases:
6(i). On 21.04.2005 while deceased Nos.1and 2 were on their morning walk
and when they reached near Brick Kiln of Katakam Jayaramaiah on Naidupet –
3Kalahasthi Highway at about 06:00 am, offending vehicle came from behind,
dashed and ran over. Due to which, both of them causing the death.
6(ii). A case vide Crime No.59 of 2005 was registered at Naidupet Police Station
for the offence under Section 304-A IPC initially under a „hit and run case‟. But,
during investigation, it is found that driver of the offending vehicle (SK. Rafi)
arrayed as accused in the charge sheet filed by the Police, drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner causing instantaneous death of both the deceased.
The vehicle is owned by Respondent No.1 and insured with Respondent No.2.
Hence, both the Respondents are accountable to pay just and reasonable
compensation.
Specific case of the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014:
7(i). Deceased No.1 (Poonati Malakondaiah) was aged about „57‟ years; hale
and healthy; running brick manufacturing and selling industry apart from
attending agricultural works and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
7(ii). Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the
deceased No.1. Being the legal heirs and dependants entitled for just and
reasonable compensation.
4
Specific case of claimants in M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014:
8(i). Deceased No.2 (Vankayalapati Naganjaneyulu) was aged about „39‟
years; hale and healthy; running brick manufacturing and selling industry apart
from attending agricultural works (self employed person) and earning Rs.15,000/-
per month.
8(ii). Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the minor son, claimant No.3 is
the mother of the deceased. All the claimants being legal heirs and dependants
entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
9. Respondent No.1 / owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte in
both the cases.
Case of Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:
10. Both claims (O.P.Nos.1212 of 2009 and 1213 of 2009) are arising out of
the same accident dated 21.04.2005. Hence both the cases are required to be
tried jointly and disposed of together to avoid the conflict in the judgments.
11. One Poonati Thirumala Naidu gave report to S.H.O. Naidupet Police
Station covered by Crime No.59 of 2005 registered for the offence under Section
304-A IPC. As per the report, unknown vehicle dashed the deceased and fled
away. Hence, it is a hit and run case. The vehicle number was not mentioned in
the F.I.R. Therefore, involvement of the offending vehicle is doubtful. Hence,
5Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company (appellant) is not a proper party and not
liable to pay any compensation.
12. Further, as per the report, it reveals that a vehicle like Tata Sumo caused
the accident. But, as per the charge sheet the offending vehicle is the car.
Hence, the involvement of the offending vehicle, which is the car, cannot be
accepted.
13. The claimants in both cases shall establish age, occupation and income of
the respective deceased, dependency of the claimants, compliance of conditions
of policy by the owner of the offending vehicle and valid and effective driving
licence for the driver of the offending vehicle at relevant time. Possibility of
collusion between the claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle cannot be
ruled out. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed in both cases is
excessive and exorbitant. Both the cases are liable to be dismissed against the
Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company.
14. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for
trial:
M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 (Old No.1212 of 2009):
(1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of Poonati
Malakondaiah @ Topi Naidu, if so, was it due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Car bearing Regn. No.AP 10 M 6886 by its driver?
6
(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what
amount and from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014 (Old No.1213 of 2009):
(1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of
Vankayalapati Naganjaneyeulu, if so, was it due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Car bearing Regn.No.AP 10 M 6886?
(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what
amount and from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
15. Common Evidence was taken before the learned MACT:
Description Remarks Oral P.W.1: Smt. Poonati Jayamma Wife of the deceased in evidence O.P.No.403 of 2014 (Old No.1212 of 2009) P.W.2: Smt. Vankayalapati Wife of the deceased in Padmavathi O.P.No.404 of 2014 (Old No.1213 of 2009) P.W.3: Sri Katakam Jaya Ramaiah Eye witness to the accident. P.W.4: Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Income-tax official R.W.1: Sri B. Manmadha Administrative Officer in Respondent No.2 Insurance Company. 7
Documentary Ex.A1: First Information Report in
evidence Crime No.59 of 2005 of Naidupet
Police Station for offence under
Section 304-A IPC.
Ex.A2: Inquest Panchanama of On behalf of the
Poonati Malakondaiah, who is the petitioner(s).
deceased in the M.V.O.P.No.403 of
2014.
Ex.A3: Postmortem Certificate of the
deceased in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014
Ex.A4: Motor Vehicles Inspector‟s
Report.
Ex.A5: Charge sheet filed by the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Naidupet.
Ex.A6: Inquest Panchama of
Vankayalapati Naganjanyeulu,
deceased in M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014
(Old M.V.O.p.No.1213 of 2009).
Ex.A7:Another copy of postmortem
certificate of Malakonda Naidu
Ex.A8:Income-tax particulars of
deceased Malakonda Naidu in
M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014.
Ex.A9: Income-tax particulars of
deceased Malakonda Naidu in
M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014.
Ex.B1: Insurance Policy Copy On behalf of the
Respondents.
Ex.B2: Judgment in C.C.No.273 of 2005
Findings of the learned MACT:
Involvement of the crime vehicle and negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle:
16. P.W.3 / Sri Katakam Jaya Ramaiah- eye witness to the accident has
categorically stated about his presence at Brick Kilns and both the deceased
8
moving on the road margin and the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 10 M 6886
causing the accident and injuries to the deceased.
17. The documents Ex.A1-FIR, though not disclosing the vehicle number,
Ex.A4-Motor Vehicles Inspector‟s Report indicating the number of the offending
vehicle. Further, the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle
is also indicating the involvement of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the
involvement of offending vehicle and negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle are believed.
On entitlement for compensation:
18. The claimants being legal representatives and dependants entitled for
compensation.
Quantum:
M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 (Old No.1212 of 2009):
19. In respect of deceased No.1 as per Ex.A8 and Ex.A9, the income is
Rs.84,000/- per annum. 1/3rd of the same is fit to be deducted towards personal
expenditure. Then it comes to Rs.56,000/-. Out of the same, 30% is to be
deducted towards income tax. Then, the contribution comes to Rs.39,200/-. Age
of the claimants is „61‟ years. Multiplier applicable is „7‟. Therefore, the
claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of estate, loss of
earning member, prospects in life and mental agony at Rs.2,74,400/- . Towards
9
Transport expenses at Rs.2,000/- , towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1
is at Rs.25,000/- . In all, the entitlement of claimants at Rs.3,01,400/-.
M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014 (Old No.1213 of 2009):
20. In respect of deceased No.2, monthly income of the deceased is notionally
taken at Rs.5,000/- per month which comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum. Upon
deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, the balance comes at
Rs.40,000/-. 30% of the same deducted towards income tax, balance is at
Rs.28,000/-. Whereby, „multiplier‟ applicable for the age group of „36‟ to „40‟
years is „15‟. Then, the entitlement of claimants for compensation under the
head of loss of estate, loss of earning member, prospects in life and mental
agony is at Rs.4,20,000/-. Claimants are entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards transport
expenditure, under the head of loss of consortium to claimant No.1 at
Rs.25,000/- . In all, the entitlement of claimants comes at Rs.4,47,000/-.
Comparative details:
Sl. Name of the Occupation M.V.O.P.No. Multiplier and Amount
No. deceased / age and income & M.A.C.M.A. Multiplicand awarded by
per annum No. the learned
MACT
1. Poonati Running Brick 403 of 2014 & Multiplier: „7‟
Manufacturing 517 of 2017
Malakondaiah / Multiplicand:
and Selling Rs.3,01,400/-
61 years industry & Rs.39,200/-
Rs.84,000/-.
2. Vankayalapati Running Brick 404 of 2014 & Multiplier: „15‟
Manufacturing 453 of 2017
Naganjaneyulu / Multiplicand:
and Selling Rs.4,47,000/-
40 years industry & Rs.28,000/-
Rs.60,000/-.
10
Arguments in the appeal:
For the appellant / Insurance Company:
21. The involvement of the offending vehicle is not stated in the FIR. The
description of vehicle mentioned that a vehicle like Tata Sumo. But, the vehicle
as per the charge sheet is Ambassador Car. Therefore, the involvement of the
offending vehicle is not proved. The case on hand should have been proceeded
under the hit and run case. The claimants failed to prove that the driver of the
offending vehicle having valid driving licence. Hence, imposing liability on the
Appellant Insurance Company is not correct.
For the claimants:
22. Findings of the learned MACT on the aspects relating to involvement of
offending vehicle, negligence of its driver are all clear and categorical based on
the material available on record. There are no grounds to interfere all those
aspects. Quantum of compensation awarded is conservative and meagre and
hence require enhancement. The learned MACT ought to have considered that
there is no bar to award more compensation than what claimed and erred in
taking the income notionally at Rs.5,000/- per month only in respect of deceased
No.2.
23. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments
advanced by all the parties.
11
24. Now the points that arise for determination in these appeals are:
1) Whether the involvement of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 10 M
6886 is shown with convincing evidence and whether the involvement of
the offending vehicle and the negligence of the driver thereof are evident
from the record available?
2) Whether the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 are entitled for
compensation, if so, to what quantum?
3) Whether the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014 are entitled for
compensation, if so, to what quantum?
4) What is the liability of the Respondents particularly Respondent No.2
(appellant-Insurance Company) and Whether the impugned award dated
13.10.2016 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 and
M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014 and the compensation awarded there under
require interference, if so, to what extent?
5) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2017?
6) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.453 of 2017?
12
Point No.1:
Statutory and Precedential Guidance:
25. It is relevant to note that the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are
applicable in deciding the cases by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and they
are made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 176 of the Motor
Vehicles Act which reads as follows:
176. Power of State Government to make rules.–A State
Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect
the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules
may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:–
(a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the
particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect
of such applications;
(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an
inquiry under this Chapter;
(c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a
Claims Tribunal;
(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on
payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a
Claims Tribunal; and
(e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.
26. Chapter „11‟ of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 commencing from
Rule 455 to Rule 476A deals with the powers of the Tribunal and all other allied
aspects like form of application, registration, notice to parties, appearance and
13
examination of parties, local inspection, summary examination of parties, method
of recording evidence, adjournments, framing and determination of issues,
judgments and enforcements of awards, Court fee relating to claim petitions
applicability of Civil Procedure Code and the application for claim basis to award
the claim by the claims tribunal. Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
reads as follows:
Rule 476: Application for claim :-
(1) Every application in the case of claim under Chapter X of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; shall be made in Form CWF (Claim Without
Fault); Provided that the application shall also be accompanied by an
affidavit stating that the petitioner has not filed any other claim petition
regarding the same cause of action or the same accident in the same
Tribunal or any other Tribunal to his/her knowledge. (2) Fees:- Every
applicant along with application for claim under Chapter X shall pay a
fee of Rs. 10/-.
(3) Consideration of the claim: Every claim under Chapter X of the
Motor Vehicles Act shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal summarily
complying with the principles of natural justice.
(4) Application not to be rejected on technical flaw – The Claims
Tribunal shall not reject any application made as per the provision of
Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground of any
technical flaw, but shall give notice to the applicant and get the defect
rectified.
(5) Presence of owner and insurer not necessary to award the claim
after notice :- The Claims Tribunal shall give notice to the owner and
insurer, if any of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, directing
14them to appear on a date not later than 10 days from the date of issue
of notice. The date so fixed for such appearance shall also be not later
than 15 days from the receipt of the claim application. The Claims
Tribunal shall state in such notice, that in case they fail to appear on
such appointed date, the tribunal will procede ex-parte on the
presumption that they have no contention to make against, the award
of compensation.
(6) Award of Claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever
information necessary form the Police, Medical and other authorities
and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given
notice, appear or not on the appointed date.
(7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall proceed
to award the claim on the basis of;-
(i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved
in the accident;
(ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the
insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party
risk;
(iii) Copy of First Information Report;
(iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from
the Medical Officer; and
(v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical
Officer who has examined the victim.
(7A) Specification of amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to each victim:- Where compensation is awarded to two
or more persons, the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the
amount payable to each of them.
15
27. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of
enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of
legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and
circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of
standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering
a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road
accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimants shall have to establish is
preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and
consistent.
28. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation1, in para 15 observed as follows:
“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic
view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be
possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said
purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective
stories set forth by both the parties..”
Analysis of Evidence:
29. Ex. A1-FIR is referring that an unknown vehicle has hit the deceased.
Ex.A4-MVI report and Ex.A5-Charge sheet are indicating the involvement of the
offending vehicle. Ex.B2 is the judgment in C.C.No.273 of 2005.
1
2009 (13) SCC 530
16
30. The emphasis of the Insurance Company is that the FIR does is
containing the vehicle number and the description is also not clear rather
confusion as it is indicating that a vehicle like Tata Sumo caused the accident.
Clear reading of column No.12 of the FIR would show that an unknown vehicle
has hit the deceased. Column No.15 of the Inquest Report is indicating that a
vehicle like Tata Sumo has hit the deceased. Whereas, the charge sheet is
indicting that the vehicle number also. Proper person to deny the involvement of
the vehicle is the owner of the offending vehicle. He remained ex parte. No
steps are put in to summon and examine him by the Insurance Company.
31. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the crime record
can be the basis. The official acts done are presumed to be proper until a
contrary is proved particularly when some statutory recognition is given to such
official records.
32. It is not a case of the Insurance Company that it has made some
investigation and reports etc. are there. The crucial documents which would
completely answer the objection of the insurance company is Ex.B2 judgment.
The Insurance Company would contend that the accused is acquitted.
33. Firstly, it is fit to be seen that the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Sullurpet in C.C.No.273 of 2005 acquitted the accused on the ground that the
involvement of the accused is not proved but, not on the fact of either negligence
17
of the driver of the offending vehicle or the very involvement of the vehicle itself is
not proved. Evidence of PW.5 examined in C.C.No.273 of 2005 before the
learned Magistrate played a crucial role. He has identified the vehicle but did not
identify the driver. Para 14 and 20 of the judgment covered by Ex.B2 found
relevant for appreciating the objection of the Insurance Company. Hence, they
are extracted which are as follows:
14. Further as per the prosecution one Pannapallı Balaji
(LW.10) and PW.5 were noticed the accused as driver of the
crime vehicle and they also noticed the crime vehicle after the
accident. For that the prosecution examined PW.5 and given up
the evidence of said Pannapalli Balaji for the reasons best known
to them. But, in the evidence of PW.5 he deposed that on
21.4.2005 a in the early hours the accident took place on
Kalahasti bypass road near Saptagiri Rice Mill, at that time, he
himself and his friend Balaji (LW.10) were going for morning walk
and noticed dead bodies of deceased 1 and 2 and deposed that
he also found the presence of Ambassador car bearing No. AP
M 6886 at the scene of offence. But he clearly deposed that he
has not seen the driver of the said car and also deposed that he
was not examined by the police and given a go-bye to the case
of prosecution. So as per the prosecutionPw.5 and one Balaji
were noticed the crime vehicle and accused after some distance
of the scene of offence and they enquired the accused whether
he caused any accident etc. things. But, in the evidence PW.5
deposed nothing as alleged by the prosecution except deposing
the number of the crime vehicle. So as per the prosecution,
18PW.5 is the main witness but in his evidence nothing wrong is
elicited against the accused further the prosecution also fails to
file any documents showing that the accused is the owner of the
crime vehicle because the same was also denied by the accused
while he was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. So far, there
is no reason or any evidence on behalf of prosecution against
the accused as he is the driver of crime vehicle and drove the
vehicle with rash and negligent manner at the time of accident.
20. So as per the prosecution, it is a hit and run case at the time
of accident. But again as per the prosecution, immediately after
the accident, PW.5 and one Balaji noticed the accused and crime
vehicle at some distance of scene of offence and enquired him
about the accident. But the evidence ofPW.5 is not helpful to the
case of prosecution as he gave a go-bye to the case of
prosecution. Further, there is no any evidence on the record to
show that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle by the
time of accident and he drove the vehicle with rash and negligent
manner and Caused the accident.
34. The findings under Ex.B2 which are relied on by the Insurance Company
would show that involvement of the offending vehicle with its number AP 10M
6886 is spoken by PW.5. But, the driver is not identified. The prime and material
objection of the Insurance Company is that the vehicle is planted. A clear
reading of Ex.B2 – judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class and the
other crime record including the evidence of PW.3 would safely drive to conclude
that the involvement of the offending vehicle is clearly shown with all acceptable
19
evidence. Therefore, the objection of the insurance company is not tenable. It is
also relevant to note that there is no rebuttal evidence from the Insurance
Company, contradicting the material placed by the claimants.
35. The evidence of RW.1 / Sri B. Manmadha, the Administrative Officer of
Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company would show that RW.1 and the
Insurance Company relying on the suspicion as to description of vehicle at FIR
and inquest report. But, reading the entire material would dispel the suspicion on
the doubt projected by the Insurance Company.
36. It is relevant to note that RW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident.
RW.1 has admitted during cross examination that non identification of the driver
is the reason for acquittal. It is clear from the record that vehicle is identified but
the driver is not identified. It is also relevant to note that negligence of the driver
of the vehicle is shown. Who drive the vehicle may be relevant for examining the
culpability of the driver for the offence. For examining the accountability for
tortious act of the driver who drove the vehicle may be an ancillary aspect but not
a primary one. While considering the claim basing on a tort like an accident, the
tortious act is a primary aspect and the vehicle / object involved is commissioned
such tortious act is a relevant aspect for making owner and insurance company
accountable. Who is the accused is an ancillary fact and aspect.
20
37. It is also relevant to note that proper person to deny the involvement of the
driver and negligence remained silent and no steps are taken to place evidence
of such person. Hence, the objections of the insurance company found not
convincing and liable to be rejected.
38. For the reasons aforesaid, point No.1 is answered against the insurance
company concluding that there is material indicating the involvement of the
offending vehicle and that negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the
cause for accident. The incomplete description of the vehicle at initial stages of
FIR is quite insufficient to disbelieve the involvement of the vehicle which is
shown with convincing material after investigation particularly when the material
collected by the Police during the investigation can also be basis for awarding
compensation. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point Nos.2 and 3:
39. Claimant No.1 in both the cases is wife of the deceased, wife is a legal heir
and dependant. Claimants No.2 and 3 in respect of deceased No.1 are the
children may be the majors. They are legal heirs may not be the dependents.
40. In respect of deceased No.2, Claimant No.2 is the minor son and claimant
No.3 is the mother. Therefore, they fit in the expression of both legal heirs and
dependants.
21
41. Hence the claimants in both cases are entitled for compensation, may be
the quantum of compensation to which they are entitled may vary basing on their
dependency on the deceased and other relevant aspects like age, occupation
and income of the respective deceased.
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:
42(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.2 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.
42(ii). Hon‟ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the
compensation, they are:
2
2009 (6) SCC 121
22Step 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:
43(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others3 case
guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50%
3
2017(16) SCC 680
23where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years
and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years.
43(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:
44. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable
compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and
Others4, 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.
4
(2018) 18 SCC 130
24
d) Just Compensation:
45. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others5, 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 the
Motor 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.
e) Adding of future prospects in respect of self employed, non-earning
group and notional income group :
46. In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors.6, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed that in respect of self-
5
(2013) 9 SCC 54
6
(2021) 17 SCC 148
25
employed or in respect of non-earning or not doing any job persons also there is no bar
of adding future raise of income or adopting notional income.
Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal:
47(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal
or cross appeal by the claimant. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate
Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under
challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or
prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just
and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross
objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between
National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others7 in
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:
50. 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.
47(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (7 supra) case
7
2023 SCC Online AP 1725
26
are in compliance with the observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Surekha and
Others vs. Santosh and Others8.
47(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (8 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 compensation 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
the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the
claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are
otherwise entitled:-
48. 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:
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others9, at para 21 of the
judgment, that –
8
(2021) 16 SCC 467
9
(2003) 2 SCC 274
27“..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.10 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
Others11 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,
there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The
courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.”10
2020 (04) SCC 413
11
(2019) 2 SCC 192
28
49. The learned MACT in both the cases has deducted 30% towards income
tax without referring to taxable limit and standard deductions etc. If at all the
income tax is to be deducted, it shall be in respect of entire income that to basing
on the taxable limit. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure in
respect of balance amount deducting towards income tax found not as correct
approach by the learned MACT which is done in both cases. Income adopted
basing on the income tax returns in respect of deceased No.1 since based on
documentary and oral evidence no grounds are found to be interfere.
50. Further, adding of future prospects does not arise since the deceased No.1
is aged about „60‟ years. In respect of the deceased No.2 notional income
adopted by the learned MACT found convincing. However, upon considering age
of the deceased No.2 being around „40‟ years adding of 30% towards future
prospects should have been done which is not done by the learned MACT.
51. Since it is not shown that income is beyond taxable limit and no material is
placed indicating the taxable limit and exemptions in terms of the Income Tax
Act, deduction of amount towards tax liability of the deceased found not
necessary.
52. Therefore, quantification of compensation done by the learned MACT
required to be revisited and revamped in the light of the evidence as to
occupation etc. of both the deceased and in the light of evidence relating to
29
Income Tax limit of deceased No.1 covered under Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 (income-tax
particulars) and evidence of P.W.4.
53. The entitlement of claimants in both cases for compensation in comparison
to compensation awarded by the learned MACT as follows:
Details of entitlement of claimants in respect of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and
relevant aspects as to quantification of compensation:
Sl. Head Deceased No.1 Deceased No.2
(Poonati Malakondaiah) (Vankayalapati Naganjaneyulu)
N0. in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 / in M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014 /
M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2017 M.A.C.M.A.No.453 of 2017
Factors and Adopted by Factors and Adopted by
method this Court method this Court
adopted by the adopted by the
learned MACT learned MACT
1. Income of the Rs.84,000/- Rs.84,000/- Rs.60,000/- Rs.60,000/-
deceased
2. Future -Nil- Adding of future -Nil- Rs.78,000/-
prospects does
(@ adding of
prospects not arise as the
30% towards
deceased No.1
future
is aged about
prospects.)
„61‟ years.
3. Balance 1/3rd deducted 1/3rd deducted 1/3rd deducted 1/3rd deducted
towards towards towards towards
(Multiplicand) personal personal personal personal
expenditure and expenditure, expenditure and expenditure,
30% deducted balance is at 30% deducted balance is at
towards income Rs.56,000/-. towards income Rs.52,000/-
tax, balance is tax, balance is
at Rs.39,200/-. at Rs.28,000/-.
4. Age of the
„61‟ years „61‟ years „40‟ years „40‟ years
deceased (as per inquest (as per inquest
and postmortem and postmortem
report) report)
30
5. Multiplier 7 7 15 15
6. Calculation Rs.39,200/- x 7 Rs.56,000/- x 7= Rs.28,000/-x15= Rs.52,000/-x15=
=Rs.2,74,400 Rs.3,92,000/- Rs.4,20,000/- Rs.7,80,000/-
7. a)Loss of Rs.2,74,400/- Rs.3,92,000/- Rs.4,20,000/- Rs.7,80,000/-
(including loss (including loss
dependency
of estate etc.) of estate etc.)
b)Loss of Covered under Rs.15,000/- Covered under Rs.15,000/-
Sl.No7(a) Sl.No7(a)
Estate
8. Funeral -Nil- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
Expenditure
9. Loss of Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-
@ 1st claimant @ 40,000/- to each, @ 1st claimant @ 40,000/- to each
claimant claimant
consortium
10. Transport Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.3,01,400/- Rs.5,44,000/- Rs.4,47,000/- Rs.9,32,000/-
54. For the aforesaid reasons stated, point No.2 and 3 are answered
concluding that the claimants in respect of deceased No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.403 of
2014 are entitled for compensation at Rs.5,44,000/- and the claimants in respect
of deceased No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014 are entitled for compensation at
Rs.9,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Point No.4:
55. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company disputed the liability alleging that
the vehicle is planted and involvement of the offending vehicle did not involve in
the accident.
31
56. Point No.1 touching the involvement of the offending vehicle is answered
against the Insurance Company and in favour of the Claimants. The other
ground as to absence of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle and
the violations vaguely asserted by the Insurance Company are not proved.
Therefore, the Insurance Company is found liable to pay compensation. Point
No.4 is answered accordingly against the insurance company.
Point Nos.5 and 6:
57. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1 to 4,
Point Nos.5 and 6 are answered as follows:
In the result,
M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2017
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) However, compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 at Rs.3,01,400/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,44,000/- with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
(iii) Enhanced part of the compensation shall be apportioned equally
among all the claimants.
(iv) Claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the
compensation, before the learned MACT.
32
M.A.C.M.A.No.453 of 2017:
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) However, compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014 at Rs.4,47,000/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.9,32,000/- with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization.
(iii) Enhanced part of the compensation shall be apportioned equally
among all the claimants.
(iv) Claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the
compensation, before the learned MACT.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals
shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 20th June, 2025
Note:
L.R. Copy be marked
(B/o).
Knr
33HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A Nos.453 and 517 of 2017
20th June, 2025Note:
L.R. Copy be marked
( B/o.)
Knr