THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KADAPA. vs MANJULA VIJAYA KUMARI AND 5 OTHERS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 842

Date of reserved for Judgment :05.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement :03.03.2026 Date of uploading :03.03.2026 APHC010729612012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4221/2012 Between:
1. T HE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KADAPA., REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NAGARAJUPETA, KADAPA.
...APPELLANT AND
11. M ANJULA VIJAYA KUMARI AND 5 OTHERS, W/O SRINIVASULU HOUSE WIFE R/OSETTYVARIPALLI VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL.
NOW R/O D.NO.9/247-A, 2. M ANJULA VENKATA DILIP KUMAR, S/O SRINIVASULU MINOR, R/OSETTYVARIPALLI VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL. NOW R/O D.NO.9/247-A, 3. M ANJULA KAVITHA, D/O SRINIVASULU MINOR, R/OSETTYVARIPALLI VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL. NOW R/O D.NO.9/247-A, 4. M ANJULA VENKATA SAI TARUN, S/O SRINIVASULU MINOR, PET. 2 TO 4 ARE REP.BY THEIR MOTHER -1ST PETITIONER R/OSETTYVARIPALLI VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL. NOW R/O D.NO.9/247-A, 5. M ANJULA PEDDA VENKATESU, S/O KONDAIAH COOLIE R/OSETTYVARIPALLI VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL. NOW R/O D.NO.9/247-A, 6. M /S SHIV SHAKTHI CONSTRUCTIONS, REP.BY ITS MANAGER, OWNER OF LORRY NO. AP 11 T 4543 R/O 6-2-318/5/1, ROAD NO.14, BANJARA HILLS, ...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toset aside the order dated 21st October, 2011 passed in MVOP.No. 217 of 2006 on the file of the MACT Cum Family Court cum VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 2330 OF 2012 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 condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal IA NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP 2683 OF 2012 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 suspend the operation of the Order dated 21st October, 2011 passed in MVOP.No .2176 of 2006 on the file of the MACT cum Family Court cum VI Addl.
District Judge, Kadapa.
IA NO: 3 OF 2012(MACMAMP 7691 OF 2012 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 vacate the interim stay granted in MACMA.MP.No. 2683 of 2012 in MACMA(SR).No. 16517 of 2012, dt. 24/04/2012 Counsel for the Appellant:
1. T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. J SESHAGIRI RAO The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.4221 of 2012

JUDGMENT

Introductory:

1. Respondent No.2 / The New India Assurance Company Limited in M.V.O.P.No.217 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short “the learned MACT”) feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.7,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded by the learned MACT as against the claim made for the death of one Manjula Srinivasulu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), filed the present appeal.

2. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children and claimant No.5 is the father of the deceased.

3. Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT is the owner of the Lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 4543 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). Respondent No.2 is the insurer.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimants:

5(i). On 12.11.2005, while the deceased was travelling on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 04 J 8217, when it was near Shilpa Kalavedika of Madapur, the offending vehicle, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, causing the accident and instantaneous death of the deceased.

(ii). A case in Crime No.332 of 2005 was registered for the offences under Section 304-A IPC and a charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was hale and healthy, aged 34 years and working as a Labour Contractor, earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to his sudden demise, the family became orphans. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the insurer. Hence, both are liable to pay compensation.

6. Respondent No.1, being the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:

7(i). The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to the accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased.

(ii). The negligence of the deceased in riding the motor cycle is the cause for the accident. He suddenly tried to cross the road where there was heavy traffic. Therefore, there is no liability for the owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

(iii). In any event, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

Findings of the learned MACT:

8(i). Considering the evidence of eye-witness-P.W.2, the learned MACT found that the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and the defence of the Insurance Company contra cannot be appreciated, as none are examined on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, both respondents are jointly and severally liable.

(ii). The age of the deceased is „42‟ years as per Ex.A5. As per Ex.A6, the age of the deceased is „30‟ years. The 1^st identity card was issued in the year 2004 and even then the age of the deceased is mentioned as 42 years in the L& T Ltd. document. Therefore, the age is accepted at „43‟ years with reference to the date of accident. For want of proof such as income tax returns etc., the income of the deceased is accepted at Rs.6,000/- per month. If 1/4^th is deducted towards the personal expenditure, net income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,500/- per month and Rs.54,000/- per annum. The Multiplier applicable is „14‟. Then the petitioners / claimants are entitled for Rs.7,56,000/- (Rs.54,000/- X 14) under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and claimant No.1, being the wife, is entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.7,92,000/- as compensation.

9. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful consider

Click Here to Read the rest of this document