Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1370
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
CHAVVA RATHNAMMA & 4 ORS – Respondent
MACMA 2242/2016
A JAYANTHI, D KODANDARAMI REDDY
The court affirmed that compensation for motor vehicle accidents should reflect the deceased's earning capacity and proper multiplier application, emphasizing the necessity of considering eyewitness testimony for establishing negligence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173 - Appeal against compensation awarded by MACT - Claim for Rs.40,00,000/- for death of deceased in motor accident - MACT awarded Rs.19,50,000/-; appellant contests liability and compensation amount. (Para 3)
(B) Negligence - Evidence of eyewitness accepted; involvement of offending vehicle established despite counterclaims of negligence on deceased's part. (Paras 25, 26)
(C) Compensation - MACT calculated income of deceased at Rs.1,80,000/-; multiplier of 16 applied, resulting in award of Rs.19,20,000/- for loss of dependency, plus additional compensation for loss of consortium and funeral expenses. (Para 34)
(D) Appeal dismissed, compensation modified to Rs.19,90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. (Para 36)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was involved in a motorcycle accident on 05.10.2007, resulting in fatal injuries. The claimants argued for a higher compensation based on the deceased's income from various economic activities.
Findings of Court:
The MACT found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and determined compensation based on the deceased’s notional income and multiplier.
Issues: The court addressed the issues of negligence, the quantum of compensation, and the liability of the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the MACT's findings on negligence and the basis for calculating compensation, emphasizing that compensation should reflect the deceased's earning capacity and contribution to the family.
Result: Appeal dismissed, compensation modified to Rs.19,90,000/- with interest.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) in M.V.O.P.No.186 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the MACT”) feeling aggrieved by the award dated 05.05.2009 passed by the learned MACT filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Complaining death of one Sri Chavva Jayarami Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) due to Motor Vehicle Accident, his wife, children and mother filed claim petition invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 475 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules making a claim for awarding a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest and costs etc.
3. Learned MACT passed an award granting a compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum making owner and insurance company of offending vehicle liable to pay the compensation. Questioning imposition of liability and quantification of compensation, the appellant is before this Court.
4. Respondent No.1 to 4 herein are the claimants before the learned MACT. Respondent No.5 herein is the owner of the offending vehicle and he was arrayed as Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.
Case of the claimants:
5(i). On the fateful day i.e. 05.10.2007 when deceased was travelling on his motorcycle form Badvel to Porumamilla Main Road, at about 7.00 p.m. Jeep bearing No.PY 01D 8731 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driven by its driver came from behind in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling, whereby the deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Badvel and from there to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati where on 07.10.2007, while undergoing treatment he was succumbed to injuries
5(ii). A case in Crime No.198 of 2007 was registered in Badvel Urban Police Station for the offences under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and he was subsequently charge sheeted as the accident occurred due to exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
5(iii). Deceased was aged about 39 years hale and healthy engaged in Contract works of internal and external decoration of buildings and also went to Kuwait during the year 2005 for attending that work. Being a contractor, he earned good quantity of money, developed properties like purchasing house site, sheep, goats, lands and lending business etc. and also engaged in civil sub contract works of formation of roads, canals etc. He was earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. He was contributing for Margadarshi chit funds value of each was more than Rs.10,00,000/- with payment of Rs.20,000/- per month which reflects his earning and financial capacity. He was also contributing for LIC and other insurance company policies. He was contributing his entire income to the family. If proper multiplier with reference to the income of the deceased is applied, the claimants will be entitled for compensation of Rs.68,00,000/-. However, they are claiming only Rs.40,00,000/- and both the Respondents are liable to pay the same.
Case of Respondent No.1:
6. Respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle filed his counter contending that he is the owner of the offending vehicle. As per the information of his driver, deceased suddenly stopped the motor cycle in the middle of the road without giving essential indications to other vehicles, contributing for hitting of jeep from behind and that there was no negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle in occurrence of the accident. Further, Respondent No.1 claimed that the claimants shall prove age, occupation, income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants etc.
7. Further, it is claimed by owner of the crime vehicle that the driver is having valid
