THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTAL), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI D RAMA RAO, VIJAYAWADA

3 1. Poonati Jayamma, W/o.Late Poonati Malakondaiah, Age: 50 years, R/o.D.No. 3-5-55, Rajagopalapuram, Naidpuet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Poonati Kondapa Naidu, S/o.Poonati Malakondaiah Age: 35 years, R/o.D.No.3-5-55, Rajagopalapuram, Naidpuet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 3. Poonati Tirumala Naidu, S/o.Poonati Malakondaiah Age: 33 years, R/o.D.No.3-5-55, Rajagopalapuram, Naidpuet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ... Respondents/Claimants 4. Shaik Chingi Saheb, Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 10 M 6886, Pidathapoluiru Village Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. S/o.Doda Saheb Age: Major, Owner of ...Respondent/Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 1108 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 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 pursuance of award in MVOP.No.403/2014 dated 13-10-2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gudur-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Gudur pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Gudi Srinivasu Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.4 The Court made the following: : None Appeared

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA iyi.A.C.M.A.Nos.453 and 517 of 2017 C^OMMON JUDGMFNT 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 No.1. M.VO.P.No.404 of 2014 No.2. Both matters liability and quantification of insurance Company before the learned which is directed was filed by legal representatives of deceased was filed by legal representatives of deceased were allowed-in-part by the learned MACT. Questioning the compensation awarded, Respondent No.2 / National MACT filed M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2017 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 decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.404 which is directed against the award and of 2014. 3. Both the appeals are heard together. Same counsel appellant and also the claimants. Registration No.AP 10 M 6886 (hereinafter is Respondent No.1 before the learned represented for the Owner of the Ambassador Car bearing referred to as “the offending vehicle”) MACT and he is the Respondent No.4

2 before this Court, both cases are as follows; He remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Details of SI. M.A.C.M.A. M.V.O.P. Name of the deceased / age No. Claimants Claim made No. Amount Awarded by the learned MACT No. for 1. 517 of 2017 Poonati I.Poonati Jayamma 2. Poonati Kondapa Naidu 3. Poonati Thirumala Naidu (Old No. 1212 ''^3'akondaiah / of 2009) Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.3,01,400/- @ interest at 7.5% 61 years (Deceased No.1) per annum 2. 453 of 2017 404 of 2014 Vankayalapati I.Vankayalapati (OldNo.1213 Naganjaneyulu / Padmavathi of 2009) Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.4,47,000/- @ 40 years 2. Vankayalapati Ajay Kumar 3.Vankayapati Kondamma (Deceased No.2) interest 7.5% per annum 4. For the sake of claimants and the Respondents proceedings. convenience parties will be hereinafter referred to as the as and how they are arrayed in the impugned 5. The learned MACT has disposed of both the cases separately. Case of claimants common in both ths nacne- 6(i). On 21.04.2005 while deceased and when they reached Nos.land 2 near Brick Kiln of Katakam Jayaramaiah were on their morning walk on Naidupet -

r Kalahasthi 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 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. same in a Specific case of the claimants in M.V.O.P Nn dn? 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. reasonable compensation. Being the legal heirs and dependants entitled for just and

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 both the cases. ex parte in 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 I PC. 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

5 Respondent 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 But, as per the charge sheet the offending vehicle is the car. Hence, the involvement of the offending vehicle, accepted. the accident. which is the car, cannot be 13. The claimants in both cases shall establish age, occupation and income of the respective deceased, dependency of the claimants, of policy by the owner of the offending vehicle and compliance of conditions valid and effective driving at relevant time. Possibility of collusion between the claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle cannot be licence for the driver of the offending vehicle ruled out. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed in both cases is excessive and exorbitant. Both the are liable to be dismissed against the cases 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 fOld No,1212 of 2009): (1) Whether the pleaded accident Malakondaiah @ Topi Naidu, if driving of the Car bearing Regn. No.AP 10 M 6886 by occurred resulting in death of Poonati was it due to the rash and negligent its driver? so.

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: Remarks Description Wife of the deceased in O.P.No.403 of 2014 P.W.1: Smt. Poonati Jayamma Oral evidence (Old No. 1212 of 2009) Wife of the deceased in Vankayalapati Smt. P.W.2: Padmavathi O.P.No.404 of 2014 (Old No.1213 of 2009) Eye witness to the accident. P.W.3: Sri Katakam Jaya Ramaiah Income-tax official P.W.4: Sri M. Srinivasa Rao R.W.1; Sri B. Manmadha Administrative Officer in Respondent Insurance Company. No.2

7 Documentary evidence Ex.A1: First Information Report in Crime No.59 of 2005 of Naidupet Police Station for offence under Section 304-A IPC. Ex.A2: Inquest Panchanama of Poonati Malakondaiah, who is the 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 deceased in M.V.O.P.No.404 of 2014 (Old M.V.O.p.No.1213of2009). Ex.A7;Another copy of postmortem certificate of Malakonda Naidu Ex.A8:lncome-tax particulars of deceased Malakonda Naidu in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014. EX.A9: i deceased M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014. On behalf of the petitioner(s). Naganjanyeulu, Income-tax particulars of Malakonda Naidu in Ex.BI: Insurance Policy Copy Ex.B2: Judgment in C.C.No.273 of 2005 On behalf of the Respondents. Findings of the learned MACT: Involvement of the crime vehicle and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle: 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 16.

8 moving on the road margin and the offending vehicle bearing No.AP causing the accident and injuries to the deceased. 10 M 6886 17. The documents Ex.AI-FIR, though not disclosing the vehicle number, Ex.A4-Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report indicating the number of the vehicle. Further, the charge sheet filed offending against the driver of the offending vehicle of the offending vehicle. is also indicating the involvement involvement of offending vehicle vehicle are believed. Accordingly, the and negligence of the driver of the offending On entitlement for compensation- 18. The claimants being legal compensation. representatives and dependants entitled for Quantum: jyi-V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 fOld No 1919 of 2009): 19. In respect of deceased No.1 per EX.A8 and Ex.A9, the income is as Rs.84,000/- per annum, 1/3rd of the same is fit to be deducted towards personal comes to Rs.56,000/-. deducted towards income tax. Then, the contribution of the claimants is ‘61’ years. expenditure. Then it Out of the same, 30% is to be comes to Rs.39,200/-. Age Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of estate, loss of agony at Rs.2,74,400/-. Towards Multiplier applicable is ‘7’. claimants are entitled for earning member, prospects in life and mental

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^: In respect of deceased No.2, monthly income of the deceased is nationally taken at Rs.5,000/- per month which comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum. Upon deduction of 1/3'^^ towards personal expenditure, the balance comes at 30% of the same deducted towards income tax, balance is at 20. Rs.40,000/-. Rs.28,000/-. Whereby, ‘multiplier’ applicable for the age group of ‘36’ to ‘40’ 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. years is ‘15’. under the head of loss of consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.25,000/-. In all, the entitlement of claimants comes at Rs.4,47,000/-. at Comparative detaiis: SI. Name of the deceased / age Occupation and income per annum M.V.O.P.No. & M.A.C.WI.A. Multiplier and Multiplicand Amount awarded by the learned MACT No. No. 1. Poonati Malakondaiah / 61 years Running Brick Manufacturing and Selling industry & Rs.84,000/-. Running Brick Manufacturing and Selling industry & Rs.60,000/-. 403 of 2014 & 517 of 2017 Multiplier: 7’ Multiplicand: Rs.39,200/- Rs.3,01,400/- 2. Vankayalapati Naganjaneyuiu / 40 years 404 of 2014 & 453 of 2017 Multiplier: '15' Multiplicand: Rs.28,000/- Rs.4,47,000/-

10 Arguments in the appeal- For the appellant / Insurance Company: 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: 21. 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 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. on 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?

'i 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 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) 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. an on 26. Chapter ‘IT 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 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 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 feeofRs. 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 issues. an

14 them to appear on a date not later than 10 days from the date of notice. The date so fixed for such than 15 days from the receipt of the claim of issue appearance shall also be not later application. The Claims Tribunal shall state in such notice, that in case they fail to such appointed date, the tribunal appear on 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; (Hi) 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 Corporation^ in para 15 observed as follows: 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.. ” 15. 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. 2009 (13) see 530

16 30. The emphasis of the Insurance Company is that the FIR does containing the vehicle number and the description is also not clear rather confusion as it is indicating that a vehicle like Tata Sumo Clear reading of column No. 12 of the FIR would show that IS caused the accident. 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 nf the vehicle is the owner of the offending vehicle. Fie remained ex parte. No stgps are put in to summon and examine him bv the Insurance Company 31. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the crime record 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. can be the basis. 32. It is not a case of the Insurance Company that it has made 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. some 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 Pannapalli 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,

18 PW.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 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. The findings under Ex.B2 which are relied on by the Insurance Company IS no 34. would show that involvement of the offending vehicle with its number AP 1QM 6886 is spoken bv 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^—lijs also relevant to note that there is no rebuttal evidence from the In^r^nce Company, contradicting the material placed by the claimants. 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 the doubt projected by the Insurance Company. 35. on 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,^ 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 e’^^'^'cind the 36. culpability of the driver for the offence. For examining the 3nrniintability_fpi tortious act of the driver who drove the vehicle may be an ancillary a.qpect but not a primary one. While considering the claim basing on a tort like an accidentjhe tortious act is a primary aspect and the vehicle / object involved is commjssioned such tortious act is a relevant aspect for making owner and insnranna company accountable. Who is the accused is an ancillary fact and aspect.

20 .'In 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. 37. 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 38. 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. In respect of deceased No.2, Claimant No.2 is the minor son and claimant 40. No.3 is the mother. Therefore, they fit in the expression of both legal heirs and dependants.

F 21 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. 41. 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.^ 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: ^ 2009(6)see 121

Step Nn 1 • Ascertain the she should have after deducting certain Step No,?- multiplicand, which shall he the income of the and the same expenses of the deceased deceased he / contributed to the dependents can be arrived part of personal living Ascertaining Multiplier, and table is provided i StepNo.3: This shall be with reference to the table provided m judgment itself. Calculation of the compensation. final Step- After calculation towards loss of estate, cost of medical expenses for treatment advised. Adding of 43(i). Enhancing the Court in guided for adding of future adding of certain amount towards funeral expenditure, of the deceased before conventional heads cost of transport, the death etc. loss of consortium. are prospects- scope for awarding just National Insurance Company compensation, the Hon’ble Pranay Sethi and Others^ Apex Ltd. V. case permanent employment, 50% prospect. In respect of ^2017(16) sec 680

23 where 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 Others'*, 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. "(2018) 18 see 130

24 d) Just Compensation: 45. 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: 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 see 274 ; 2003 SCC fCr/j 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it held as follows: (See p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the eiaims 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 become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties 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. was now or e) Adding of future prospects in respect of self employed, non-earnina group and notional income group : In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors.^, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed that in respect of self- 46. ' (2013) 9 SCC 54 ^(2021) 17 SCC 148

25 employed or in respect of non- of adding future raise of income earning or not doing any job persons also there is no bar or adopting notional income. Enhancement of compensation in the ahspnm 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 in terms of Section 173 of the Court particularly while dealing with an appeal Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar quantum of compensation and or prohibition if any to enhance the and reasonable awarding just any appeal or cross Bench of this Court in a case between compensation, even in the absence of objections was considered by the Division National Insurance Company Limited M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, para 50 of the judgment, which ssssiis enhance the amount of compensation or cross-objection by the claimants. 47(ii). Observations insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others^ i while answering point No.3 framed in therein vide. reads as follows: powers can in the absence of appeal even made by the Division Bench of this Court in National vs. E. Suseelamma and others (7 supra) case 2023 see Online AP 1725

26 m compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others®. are 47(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (8 supra) 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 otherwise entitled:- 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 observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in: (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others®, at para 21 of the judgment, that - case, in Civil are 48. proper to refer the following (2021) 16 see 467 ® (2003) 2 see 274

F 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.” 10 at para 33 of the judgment, as Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. (2) 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 Others^^ 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. ” 2020(04) see 413 (2019) 2 see 192 11

28 The learned MACT in both the cases has deducted 30% towards income 49. 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. Further, adding of future prospects does not arise since the deceased No.1 50. In respect of the deceased No.2 notional income is aged about ‘60’ years. 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. Since it is not shown that income is beyond taxable limit and no material is 51. 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

F 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: SI. Head Deceased No.1 (Poonati Malakondaiah) in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 / M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2017 Deceased No.2 (Vankayalapati Naganjaneyulu) in M.V.O.P.No.404of 2014 / M.A.C.M.A.No.453 of 2017 NO. Factors and method adopted by the learned MACT Adopted by this Court Factors and method adopted by the learned MACT Adopted by this Court 1. Income of the Rs.84,000/- Rs.84,000/- Rs.60,000/- Rs.60,000/- deceased 2. Future -Nil- Adding of future prospects does not arise as the deceased No.1 is aged about '6T years. -Nil- Rs.78,000/- (@ adding of 30% towards future prospects.) prospects 3. Balance rd 1/3 rd deducted 1/3 rd deducted 1/3 rd deducted 1/3 deducted towards personal expenditure and 30% deducted towards income tax, balance is at Rs.39,200/-. towards personal expenditure, balance is at Rs.56,000/-. towards personal expenditure and 30% deducted towards income tax, balance is at Rs.28,000/-. towards personal expenditure, balance is at Rs.52,000/- (Multiplicand) 4. Age of the ’6T years ‘6T years (as per inquest and postmortem report) ‘40’ years ‘40’ years (as per inquest and postmortem report) deceased

30 5. Multiplier 7 7 15 15 6. Calculation Rs.39,200/- X 7 =Rs.2,74,400 Rs.56,000/- X 7= Rs.3,92,000/- Rs.28,000/-x15= Rs.4,20,000/- Rs.52,000/-x15= Rs.7,80,000/- 7. a)Loss of dependency b)Loss of Rs.2,74,400/- (including loss of estate etc.) Covered under SI.No7(a) Rs.3,92,000/- Rs.4,20,000/- (including loss of estate etc.) Covered under SI.No7(a) Rs.7,80,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Estate 8. Funeral -Nil- Rs. 15,000/- -Nil- Rs. 15,000/- Expenditure 9. Loss of Rs.25,000/- @ 1®* claimant Rs.1,20,000/- @ 40,000/- to each, claimant Rs.25,000/- @ 1®‘ claimant Rs. 1,20,000/- @40,000/-to each 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 t in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 are entitied 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 Rs.9,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% are entitled for compensation at per annum. Point No.4: 55. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company disputed the liability alleging that the vehicle is planted and involvement of the the accident. offending vehicle did not involve in

r 31 involvement of the offending vehicle is answered The other to the driver of the offending vehicle and Point No.1 touching the against the Insurance Company and in 56. favour of the Claimants. ground as to absence of driving licence vaguely asserted by the Insurance Company are not proved. the violations 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: 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 57. The appeal is dismissed. However, compensation (i) awarded by the learned MACT in (ii) M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 at Rs.3,01,400/- with interest at the rate of modified and enhanced to Rs.5,44,000/- with ? J 7.5% per annum is 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 compensation, before the learned MACT. the Court fee for the enhanced part of the

32 M.A.C.M.A.No.453 of 2ni7- (!) The appeal is dismissed, 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 interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (ii) However, Rs.9,32,000/- with (iii) Enhanced part of the compensation shall be among all the claimants, (iv) Claimants are liable to apportioned equally pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if shall stand closed. any, pending in these appeals Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT RE^TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. (For his Lordships Kind Perusal) 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims District and Sessions Judge, at Gudur, records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Nine (09) LR. Copies. 5. The Under Secretary, Union Company Affairs, New Delhi. HARI HARANADHA SARMA To Tribunal -cum-VII Additional SPSR Nellore District, (with of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and i

F 6. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 7. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 8. Two CD Copies TK sree

HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 COWIMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA Nos.453 & 517 of 2017 , 0 8 JUL 2025 o 3^ DISMISSING THE MACMAs

APHC010424902017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI F, s; FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA jyjOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.517 of 2017 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Poonati Jayamma, W/o.Late Poonati Malakondaiah Age; 50 years, R/o.D.No. 3-5-55, Rajagopalapuram, Naidpuet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Poonati Kondapa Naidu, S/o.Poonati Malakondaiah, R/o.D.No.3-5-55, Rajagopalapuram, Naidpuet Mandal District. 3. Poonati Tirumala Naidu, S/o.Poonati Malakondaiah, R/o.D.No.3-5-55, Rajagopalapuram, Naidpuet Mandal, District. Age: 35 years, , SPSR Nellore Age: 33 years, , SPSR Nellore ... Respondents/Claimants 4. Shaik Chingi Saheb Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 10 M 6886, Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. S/o.Doda Saheb Age: Major, Owner of Pidathapoluiru Village, ...Respondent/Respondent

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the decree and Order passed in MVOP.No.403/2014, dated 13-10-2016 the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. aggrieved by on Gudur-cum- VII 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 m the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and none appeared for Respondent No.4. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That the compensation awarded by the MACT in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2014 at Rs.3,01,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% and is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.5,44,000/- with interest the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 3. That enhanced part of the compensation shall be apportioned equally among all the claimants. 4. That the Claimants be and are hereby liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the MACT. per annum be at Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal District and Sessions Judge, at Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Two CD Copies -cum-VII Additional TK sree

HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 DECREE MACWIA No. 517 of 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA

APHC010424902017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.453 of 2017 Between; National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Vankayalapati Padmavathi, W/o.Late V.Naganjaneyulu, Age: 38 years, R/o.D.No.3-5-117, Rajagopalapuram, Naidpuet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Vankayalapati Ajay Kumar, S/o.V.Naganjaneyulu, Age: 18 years, R/o.D.No.3-5-117, Rajagopalapuram, Naidpuet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 3. Vankayalapati Kondamma, M/o.Late V.Naganjaneyulu, Age: 62 years, R/o.D.No.3-5-117, Rajagopalapuram, Naidpuet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ... Respondents/Claimants 4. Shaik Chingi Saheb, S/o.Doda Saheb, Age: Major, Owner of Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 10 M 6886, Pidathapoluiru Village, Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondent/Respondent

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Order passed in MVOP.No.404/2014, dated 13-10-2016, on the file of Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gudur-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. 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 Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and none appeared for Respondent No.4. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; That the compensation awarded by the 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 be and is hereby 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; That enhanced part of the compensation shall be apportioned equally among all the claimants. That the Claimants be and are hereby liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the MACT. 1. 2. 3. 4. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Two CD Copies TK sree

HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 DECREE MACMA No.453of2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA