Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1722
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
THE ORIENTAL INS. COM. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
B DALAMMA – Respondent
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 431 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S A V RATNAM
For the Respondents: N SIVA REDDY
Compensation awarded in motor accident cases must be calculated based on accurate income and dependency assessments, considering the negligence of the driver and the age of the deceased. The court emphasized adherence to standard guidelines for fair compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal by Insurance Company against award of compensation in motor accident case.
(B) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,31,500/- based on negligence established by the eye witnesses. The respondents contested the income and age of the deceased.
(C) Facts revealed the deceased was hit by an auto while going to work as a watchman, resulting in multiple injuries and subsequent death.
(D) Main issues pertained to the determining liability, fault, and calculation of compensation based on income and dependency. (E) The court ruled the appeal was partly allowed, confirming negligence but reducing compensation to Rs.4,54,000/- based on verified income. (F) The court modified the compensation amount awarded by the MACT, finding the evidence supported a lower compensation figure, confirmed under new calculations. (G)
Result: Compensation awarded modified to Rs.4,54,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. (Paras 2-25)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the basis of the appeal and context of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the claimants and accident context. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. issues framed by the mact for determining liability. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. evidence evaluation and findings by mact. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's analysis on age and income of the deceased. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. compensation calculations and loss quantification. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. detailed comparison of compensation awarded by mact and this court. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. conclusions of the court's ruling. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. The respondent No.3 in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2014, (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited) filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, questioning the award and decree 11.01.2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamundry, [‘for short ‘MACT’], where under the MACT has awarded compensation of Rs.5,31,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a., as against a claim made for Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., by the claimants, who are arrayed as respondents No.1 to 4 herein. The respondents 5 and 6 herein are the Driver and owner of the Auto bearing No. AP 05 W 5046 [herein after referred as ‘offending vehicle’]. They were shown as respondents 1 and 2 respectively, before the MACT and they remained ex parte before the MACT.
3. The parties will be hereinafter referred as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.
The case of the claimants, in brief, is that –
4. [i] One Bonula Surya Rao @ Bonala Surya Rao [herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’], on the fateful day i.e., on 01.11.2013, at about 5.30 p.m. while proceeding on Korukonda Road, within the limits of III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, for attending his duty as watchman, the offending vehicle driven st by the 1 respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, from Rajahmundry side, proceeding towards Korukonda side, dashed the deceased causing multiple injuries. Immediately deceased was shifted to Raju Neuro Hospital, Rajahmundry, and he succumbed to injuries on 02.11.2013 at about 5.30 p.m. while undergoing treatment.
[ii] The 1st claimant is the wife, the claimant Nos.2 and 4 are the sons rd and the 3 claimant is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 55years, working as watchman, earning Rs.8,000/- per month, contributing the same for the family . His demise has denied valuable financial support, apart st from love and affection, etc., to the entire family. The negligence of the 1 nd respondent is the cause in the accident. The 2 respondent being owner of the rd offending vehicle and the 3 respondent being insurer, liable to pay compensation. Hence, the claim.
The case of the 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company:-
5. The respondent Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, st unless the negligence of the 1 respondent, coverage of risk under the Insurance Policy referred, valid and effective driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the deceased and his death due to pleaded accident, dependency of the claimants, compliance of the condition of the Policy by the owner of the offending vehicle and all other relevant facts for making the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation and quantification there on are strictly proved.
6. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the deceased died in the accident due to rash or negligent driving and by use of the vehicle i.e., auto bearing No.AP 05 W 5046 by st its driver /1 respondent?
2) Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and against whom?
4) To what relief?
Evidence before the learned MACT:-
Oral Evidence:
7. [i] Claim
