Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Polagani Veeramma And 2 Others vs Sk Azeem And Another on 28 July, 2026
1
Date of reserved for orders :08.05.2026
Date of pronouncement :28.07.2026
Date of uploading :28.07.2026
APHC010586802014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1694/2014
Between:
1. POLAGANI VEERAMMA AND 2 OTHERS, W/O. LATE SATYAM,
HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KAZA VILLAGE, VENKATAREDDY PALEM,
MANGALAGIRI MANDAL,
2. POLAGANI PRAVEENA,, D/O. LATE SATYAM, STUDENT, R/O.
KAZA VILLAGE, VENKATAREDDY PALEM, MANGALAGIRI
MANDAL,
3. POLAGANI SWAPNA,, D/O. LATE SATYAM, STUDENT, R/O. KAZA
VILLAGE, VENKATAREDDY PALEM, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL,
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. SK AZEEM AND ANOTHER, S/O. JANI BASHA, TIPPARLA BAZAR,
MANGALAGIRI TOWN AND D.M.C., GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SAMBASIVAPET, 2ND LINE,
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court
2
IA NO: 3 OF 2007(MACMAMP 53312 OF 2007
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
IA NO: 1 OF 2008(MACMAMP 5245 OF 2008
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 condone the delay of 243 days in representing the
MACMASR.No. 51111/2007
IA NO: 2 OF 2008(MACMAMP 5246 OF 2008
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 condone the delay of 234 days in filing the MACMA
IA NO: 3 OF 2008(MACMAMP 28778 OF 2008
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
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GUDI SRINIVASU
2.
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1694 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 22.12.2006
passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
II Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”) in
M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2005, the claimants before the learned MACT are the
appellants herein. As against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/-, the learned
MACT awarded Rs.5,29,200/- with interest and incidental directions etc.
Questioning the same as inadequate, the present appeal is filed by the
claimants.
2. Respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the Auto Riksha bearing
No.AP 07 X 6492 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”)
remained ex parte before the learned MACT and Respondent No.2 is the
Insurance Company.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to
as the petitioners/claimants and the respondents, as and how they are
arrayed before the learned MACT.
Case of the claimants:
4(i). One Pologani Satyam (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”),
husband of claimant No.1 and father of other claimants, while crossing NH-5
Road, Kaza Village, Nambur Cross Road for going to church on 01.01.2005
at about 02:00 A.M, the offending vehicle came from Mangalagiri side driven
4by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased
causing instantaneous death.
(ii). A case in Crime No.2 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the
offending vehicle and subsequently a charge sheet under Section 304-A IPC
was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Deceased was hale and healthy aged about 43 years, working as Supplier in
boys hostel, Nagarjuna University and he was getting Rs.8,000/- per month
as salary. He was contributing his entire income to the family (claimants).
The claimants are legal heirs and dependents. Due to death of the deceased
their future became dark. Hence they are entitled for just and reasonable
compensation.
(iii). Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and
respondent No.2 being the insurer liable to pay the compensation.
Case of respondent No.2:
5(i). The petitioners shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to accident, age,
occupation and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants.
(ii). The negligence of the deceased is the cause for accident.
(iii). The compliance of conditions of policy and entrustment of vehicle to
proper driver etc. shall be strictly proved by the claimants.
(iv). The compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive.
5
Evidence:
6(i). Claimant No.1 examined as P.W.1. She is not eye witness to the
accident.
(ii). One Donta Satyanarayana, eye witness to the accident was examined
as P.W.2.
(iii). One M. Siva Koteswararao, working as Junior Assistant in Nagarjuna
University was examined as P.W.3, he deposed that deceased was regular
employee and getting Rs.7,180/- as gross salary.
(iv). Ex.X1 is disclosing the salary particulars of the deceased.
7. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents.
Findings of the learned MACT:
8. The evidence of eye witness and crime record discloses the
negligence of respondent No.1 as the cause for accident. The deceased
was getting Rs.7,000/- per month and he was aged „44‟ years. There is
negligence on the part of the deceased to a tune of 50%. 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards the personal
expenditure. The income of the deceased as seen from the Ex.X1, gross
salary of the deceased is Rs.7,184/-. The income can be taken at
Rs.7,800/- per month taking note of increase. On deduction of 1/3rd, the
balance comes to Rs.5,200/- per month. Then the loss of dependency
comes to Rs.4,99,200/-. Claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate. In all entitlement comes to Rs.5,29,200/-.
6
Arguments in the appeal:
For the claimants:
9(i). The learned MACT adopted multiplier „8‟ instead of „15‟ erroneously.
(ii). The compensation awarded under other heads is not correct.
For respondent-Insurance Company:
10(i). The learned MACT ought to have taken the income at Rs.7,800/-
without sufficient basis and the compensation awarded is excessive.
(ii). There are no grounds to interfere.
11. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is
given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
Scope of appeal:
12(i). Claimants filed the appeal.
(ii). There is no appeal by the respondent Insurance Company.
(iii). Therefore, violations of conditions of policy, the liability of the
respondents and entitlement of claimants for compensation are all out of
dispute.
(iv). Just and adequate nature of compensation alone require answer.
13. The Points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants under the
impugned order and decree dated 22.12.2006 by the learned MACT is
just and reasonable or require any interference if so on what grounds
and to which extent?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
7
Point No.1:
Precedential guidance:
14(i). For having uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just
compensation, the Hon‟ble Apex Court provided guidelines as to adoption of
multiplier depending on the age of the deceased in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and
Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.1 and also the method of
calculation as to ascertaining multiplicand, applying multiplier and calculating
the compensation vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the Judgment.
(ii). Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others2 case directed for adding future
prospects at 50% in respect of permanent employment where the deceased
is below 40 years, 30% where deceased is between 40-50 years and 15%
where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, in respect of self-
employed etc., recommended addition of income at 40% for the deceased
below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years and at
10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, awarding
compensation under conventional heads like loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenditure at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively is also provided in the same Judgment.
(iii). Further in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram
and Others3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the compensation under
1
2009 (6) SCC 121
2
2017(16) SCC 680
3
(2018) 18 SCC 130
8
the head of loss of consortium can be awarded not only to the spouse but
also to the children and parents of the deceased under the heads of parental
consortium and filial consortium.
Just Compensation:
15. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others4, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are
as follows:
10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in
excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for
consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa
case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280)
“10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to
„make an award determining the amount of compensation which
appears to it to be just‟. Therefore, the only requirement for
determining the compensation is that it must be „just‟. There is no
other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just
compensation.”
The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2
SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and
in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC
710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213]
11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with
regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has
now become settled law that the court should not succumb to
niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court
should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of
4
(2013) 9 SCC 54
9
the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the
dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the
discontinuance of the income earned by the victim.
Analysis and findings:
16. As per the inquest report and post-mortem report, the age of the
deceased is ’46’ years, which can be accepted as the age of the deceased.
As per Ex.X1 and the evidence of P.W.3, the gross salary of the deceased is
Rs.7,184/- per month. In view of the permanent nature of employment and
the age of the deceased, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is
permissible as per National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
and Others case. Whereby, the monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.9,339/-. If 1/3rd of the same is deducted towards the personal
expenditure, the contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to
Rs.6,226/-, which can be rounded to Rs.6,230/- per month and it comes to
Rs.74,760/- annually. For the age group of „46‟ years, the multiplier
applicable, as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr is „13‟. Whereby, the entitlement of claimants for
compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,71,880/-
(Rs.74,760/- x 13).
17. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the
conventional heads i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.1 to 4 towards
loss of consortium viz. claimant No.1-spousal consortium and claimant
Nos.2 to 3-parental consortium.
10
18. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of
the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to the
compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows:
Head Compensation Fixed by this
awarded by Court
the learned MACT
(i) Loss of dependency Rs.,4,99,200/- Rs.9,71,880/-
(ii) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Loss of Consortium Rs.15,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-
@ towards @ Rs.40,000/- to each
claimant No.1 claimant
(iv) Funeral expenses -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.5,29,200/- Rs.11,21,880/-
Interest (per annum) 6% 6%
In view of
the facts and
circumstances of the
case and considering
the length of time
19. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above,
the point framed is answered concluding that the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.11,21,880/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization and the order and decree
dated 22.12.2006 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2005
require modification accordingly.
{{{{
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are
otherwise entitled:-
20. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than
what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than
11
what is claimed. For the said proposition of law, this Court finds it proper to
refer the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in:
(1) Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others5, at para 21 of the
judgment, that –
“..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award
compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of
the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable
on the basis of evidence produced on record.”
(2) Kajal vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.6 at para 33 of the judgment,
as follows:-
“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the
amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident
claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in
case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must
be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.”
(3) Ramla and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
Others7 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs
25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the
compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the
same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot
award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function
of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 is to award “just compensation”. The 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. Further, there is no need for a new5
(2003) 2 SCC 274
6
2020 (04) SCC 413
7
(2019) 2 SCC 192
12cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-
bound to award just compensation.”
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows:
(i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2005 at Rs.7,92,000/- with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.11,21,880/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition
till the date of realization.
(ii) Claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of
the compensation, before the learned MACT.
(iii) Apportionment:
(a) Claimant No.1 / wife of the deceased is entitled for
Rs.5,21,800/- with proportionate interest and costs.
(b) Claimant Nos.2 to 3 / children of the deceased are entitled for
Rs.3,00,000/- each with proportionate interest.
(iv) Respondents before the learned MACT are liable to pay the
compensation. However, Respondent No.2 is liable in view of the
insurance policy.
(v) Time for payment /deposit of balance amount is two months.
(a) If the claimants furnish the bank account number within 15
days from today, the respondents shall deposit the amount
directly into the bank account of the claimants and file the
necessary proof before the learned MACT.
13
(b) If the claimants fail to comply with clause (v)(a) above, the
respondents shall deposit the amount before the learned
MACT and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount
at once on deposit.
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeal.
22. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal
shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:28.07.2026
Knr
Whether the order is:
Speaking Reasoned ✓
Reportable Non-reportable ✓
14
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1694 of 2014
28.07.2026
Knr
