Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.
Dr. Tata Sambasiva Rao
and Ors. – Appellants
versus
M. Ravi Kumar and Anr. – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.1555 of 2012
Decided on 14.8.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:B G Uma Devi, Advocate
For the Respondents:Amancharla Satish Babu, Advocate, M Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
IMPORTANT POINT
Just compensation – There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed – There is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 173 – Death in motor accident – Claim for just compensation – Claim was partly allowed by MACT by granting compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- as against claim made for Rs.10,00,000/- – Court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters – Attempt of court should be to equate, as far as possible, misery on account of accident with compensation so that injured/dependants should not face vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of income earned by victim – Accident has taken place in year 2007 – Income adopted by MACT is at Rs.15,000/- per month – Deceased was a student and aged about “23” years – For age group of claimant / deceased, multiplier applicable is “18” – Quantum of compensation enhanced to Rs.17,30,000/- with 7.5% interest. (Paras 11, 18, 19, 21 and 23)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Just compensation – There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed – 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 – There is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount – Courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.179 of 2008, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the decree and order dated 21.03.2012, whereby their claim was partly allowed by granting a compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-, filed the present appeal.
2. Claim is arising out of the death of one Tata Srinivasa Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.11.2007. While the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle, the lorry bearing No.AP 7 W 4568 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) dashed against the motorcycle from behind in a rash and negligent manner, which has led to death of deceased on the spot.
3. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, claimant Nos.3 is unmarried sister and claimant No.4 is elder brother of the deceased.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company.
5. Claim was resisted on the ground of compliance of conditions of policy and excessive nature of compensation by the Insurance Company. The owner of the offending vehicle viz. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
6. Learned MACT held the issue relating to negligence in favour of the claimants by referring to the FIR in Crime No.234 of 2007 vide Ex.A1, post- mortem report-Ex.A2, Inquest Report-Ex.A3 and the oral evidence of P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident, who found the offending vehicle hitting the motorcycle coming from behind and also referring that the offending vehicle ran over the head of the deceased, causing instantaneous death.
7. With regard to entitlement of claimants, referring to the relationship etc., found that they are entitled for compensation. While quantifying the compensation, learned MACT found that the deceased was studying III year M.B.B.S. and the college fee receipts indicating Rs.2,09,600/-.
8. The income of the deceased was taken at Rs.15,000/- per month by the learned MACT, 50% was deducted towards personal expenditure, multiplier applicable to the age of 1st claimant, father of the deceased, “60” years was applied. Accordingly, the compensation can be awarded at Rs.7,20,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenditure. In all, award was passed for Rs.7,30,000/-.
9. This appeal is filed by the claimants. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company. In the context of the appeal and from the arguments advanced, it is clear that the accident, negligence, death of the deceased due to accident, entitlement of the claimants for compensation and liability of the respondents to pay the same are all out of dispute.
Arguments in the appeal:
For the claimants /appellants:
10. (i) Learned MACT erred in adopting the multiplier applicable to the father of the claimant.
(ii) Learned MACT failed to award compensation under all heads.
(iii) The income should have been adopted at more than Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Future prospects are not added. .
For the Insurance Company:
11. (i) Compensation already awarded is excessive.
(ii) There are no grounds to interfere.
12. The only point under dispute is as to what is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Therefore, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:
1) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled and whether the compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is proper or requires any interference, and if so, to what extent?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
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:
13(i). Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compens
