Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 1095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Sujatha, J.
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,, Rep. By Its Divisional Manager - Appellant
Versus
Yalavala Lakshmi, W/O. Thirupathi Venkaiah @ Pandu - Respondent
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 394 of 2022
Decided On : 07-04-2026
For the Appellant : N Rama Krishna
For the Respondent: Sivaprasad Reddy Venati
In a claim for compensation filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is not entitled to the addition of future prospects to the income of the deceased, as the compensation must be strictly calculated based on the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A - Compensation under structured formula - Future prospects - Whether applicable to Section 163-A claims - Held, it is contrary to the provision - Claimants are not entitled to future prospects in claims filed under structured formula - (Para 16, 17, 18)
(B) Quantum - Loss of consortium - Award of Rs.40,000/- each to wife and son - (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which granted compensation for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant insurance company challenged the grant of future prospects in a claim petition filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that future prospects cannot be added to compensation calculated under the structured formula of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the compensation amount was modified by removing future prospects and enhancing the award for consortium to the legal heirs.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was correct in adding future prospects to the compensation calculated under the structured formula in a claim filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: As Section 163-A provides for compensation based on a specific structured formula, the addition of future prospects is inconsistent with the statutory framework of that section.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; compensation reduced.
JUDGMENT :
V. Sujatha, J.
1. This Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the Appellant/ 2nd respondent i.e., The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, 3rd party HUB, Labbipet, M.G Road, Vijayawada, challenging the Order/Award and Decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) – cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.1161 of 2014 dated 29.03.2022 awarding an amount of Rs.5,89,500/- as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-.
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
2. This is a claim petition filed under Sections 140 and 163-A of M.V. Act and Rules 455 and 476 of A.P.M.V Rules, by the legal heirs of Thirupathi Venkaiah @ Pandu, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from Respondents No.1 to 3, for the death of deceased in a Motor Vehicle.
3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.1161 of 2014are that, on 24.05.2007 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased came on his motor cycle for his daily work, after completion of his work he started on his motor cycle, on bye-pass road to reach Prasad Nagar.While he was on his way, the deceased dashed trolley, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the ground and received multiple injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Perlivaripalem and later shifted to Area Hospital, Chirala for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased passed away due to multiple injuries.
4. The accident was reported to the police, Chirala II Town police Station and a case in Cr.No.104/2007 was registeredfor the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the tractor and investigated into the case.
5. The deceased died leaving the Petitioners and that he was aged 35 years, hale and healthy, doing commission business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of the deceased they lost dependency, support and income. Hence, this Petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
6. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. Since the 3rd respondent failed to file the counter, his right to file counter was forfeited.
7. The 2nd respondent filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition and submitted that the deceased had driven the motor cycle negligently on the road without observing the traffic and due to his own negligence the accident was occurred. The deceased was riding the motor cycle at high speed without light and without observing the traffic rules on by-pass road, which is a double road, lost control over the motor cycle and hit on back side of stationed tractor and received injuries, and lost his breath in hospital while taking treatment. It was learnt that the deceased was habitual drinker and on the date of incident he had taken alcohol and had run the motor cycle carelessly and he himself had hit the tractor on back side. The liability of this respondent is always subject to provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, and the terms and conditions of policy. The amount claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. The brief averments of the additional written statement are that, the claim of amount of Rs.7.00.000/- is not correct and the petitioners filed claim application originally for Rs.6,00,000/- only. The petitioners had shown the crime vehicle tractor only and they stated that the deceased did not observe the crime vehicle and proceeded on his way and dashed the trolley. On enquiry, it was revealed that the trolley was not insured on the date of accident, and there was no coverage of policy at the time of accident. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed, with costs.
9. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal-
1) Whether the accident and death of Yalavala Thirupathi Venkaiah @ Pandu had occurred on 24.05.2007 due to rash, neg
