Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Smt. Chiriki Demudamma & Another vs Mr Rongali Demudu Naidu 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
APHC010077122014
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: 912/2014
Between:
1. SMT. CHIRIKI DEMUDAMMA & ANOTHER, W/O DEMUDU, R/O
KOTHAPENTA (V) DEVARPALLI (M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
2. SMT. CHIRIKI DEMUDU, S/O NARAYANAPPA, HINDU R/O
KOTHAPENTA (V) DEVARPALLI (M) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. MR RONGALI DEMUDU NAIDU ANOTHER, S/O VENKATA
SWAMY, OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. AP 31
AM 3931 R/O RONGALINAIDUPALEM (V) K. KOTAPADU (M)
VISAKHAPATNAM
2. IFCOTOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPTD.
BY ITS MANAGER, 4TH FLOOR, LOHIYA TOWERS, D.NO. 49-9/1-
12, OPP. NIRMALA CONVENT, VIJAYAWADA
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 5018 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
2
pleased to condone the delay of 99 days in presentation in MACMASR NO.
of 2012 dt. on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
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.912 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. One Chiriki Venkata Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”)
died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 10.02.2009 at about 08:40
p.m. near 12th K.M. stone, Dupputhuru Village, Rambilli Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District, within the limits of Rambilli Police Station. His
parents filed M.O.P.No.442 of 2010 and disputing the order and decree
dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge-cum-
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (for
short “the learned MACT”), awarding compensation of Rs.2,13,500/- as
against the claim made for Rs.5,00,000/-, contending that the same is
inadequate and that the claimants are entitled for more amount, the present
appeal is filed.
2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Motorcycle bearing No.AP 31
AM 3931 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”). Respondent
No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was
insured.
3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned MACT.
4. 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.
4
Case of the claimants:
5(i). They are dependents on the deceased and the deceased was aged
about „24‟ years, working in Venkateswara Finance Company and earning
Rs.6,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 was riding the motor vehicle on
which the deceased was travelling.
(ii). Due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, both of
them fell down at the accident spot and the deceased sustained head
injuries. Both were shifted to Apex Hospital, Visakhapatnam, but while
undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on
17.02.2009.
(iii). The claimants incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- for
treatment.
(iv). Negligence of the respondent No.1 is the cause for accident.
(v). Respondent No.2, being the Insurance Company with which the
offending vehicle was insured, is liable to pay the just and reasonable
compensation.
Case of respondent No.2:
6. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of
respondent No.1, age, occupation and income of the deceased and death of
the deceased due to the accident. The premium for policy was paid by way
of cheque and the cheque was dishonored. Therefore, respondent No.2 is
not liable. However, the deceased himself was negligent in hurriedly getting
5down from the vehicle and suffered the accident and death. Therefore,
respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.
7(i). During trial, on behalf of the claimants, claimant No.1 was examined
as P.W.1, one K. Nagendra Babu was examined as P.W.2 to show that the
deceased was treated at Apex Hospital and one Ch. Govinda Rao was
examined as P.W.3 to show that the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-
per month.
(ii). Further, claimants relied on Ex.A1-attested copy of F.I.R, Ex.A2-
attested copy of Post Mortem Report, Ex.A3-attested copy of MVI report,
Ex.A4-attested copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.A5-Photostat copy of the policy,
Ex.A6-Original Medical Bills for Rs.43,500/-, Ex.A7-Receipts issued by
APEX Hospital, Ex.A8-Receipt issued by Steel City CT Scan Pvt. Ltd.,
Ex.A9-Salary Certificate of the deceased issued by Sri Venkateswara Chits
and Finance and Ex.X1-case sheet issued by APEX Hospital.
(iii). No evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents.
Findings of the learned MACT:
8. The deceased was admittedly a pillion driver. The vehicle was driving
by respondent No.1 at the relevant time. Ex.A3-MVI Report shows that the
accident is not due to mechanical defect. Charge sheet was laid against
respondent No.1 vide Ex.A4.
9. Respondent No.1 is not examined to disown the negligence and to
prove the specific stand of respondent No.2 that the deceased himself was
negligent. Therefore, the negligence of respondent No.1 is acceptable. The
6ages of the petitioners are 45 and 55 and their average age is 50 years.
Therefore, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 50 years can be
taken. The deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as per Ex.A9-
Salary Certificate. The claimants are entitled for the amount covered under
Ex.A6, i.e. Rs.43,500/-.
10. The multiplier applicable to the age group of „50‟ years, viz. 9 can be
applied and the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.3,000/- per
month and his contribution, being unmarried, to the petitioners can be taken
at Rs.18,000/- per annum. When the same is multiplied by the multiplier, the
loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,62,000/-. Towards funeral expenditure,
the claimants are entitled for Rs.8,000/-. In all, the entitlement of the
claimants is Rs.2,13,500/-.
Arguments in the appeal:
For the appellants / claimants:
11(i). Taking the multiplier with reference to the age of the dependents /
claimants is not correct.
(ii). When the income was shown at Rs.6,000/-, accepting the income at
Rs.3,000/- and deducting 50% without adding future prospects is not correct.
(iii). The compensation awarded under conventional heads is not in tune
with the settled law and practice.
For the respondent Insurance Company:
12(i). Negligence is not proved properly and the contributory negligence of
the deceased in the occurrence of the accident should have been taken.
7
(ii). Taking the income at Rs.3,000/- per month by the learned MACT is
proper and the acceptance of the income of the deceased by the learned
MACT need not be interfered with.
13. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful
consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
Scope of appeal:
14(i). The appeal is by the claimants.
(ii). Liability and entitlement of the claimants, are deemed to have been
attained finality and beyond the scope of appeal, as the Insurance Company
did not choose to prefer any appeal.
15. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the compensation of Rs.2,13,500/- awarded by the learned
MACT is just and adequate or requires enhancement? If so, to what
tune?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
Precedential guidance:
16(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
1
2009 (6) SCC 121
8calculation 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.
v. 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. v. Nanu Ram
and Others3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the compensation under
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.
2
2017(16) SCC 680
3
(2018) 18 SCC 130
9
Just Compensation:
17. 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
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.
4
(2013) 9 SCC 54
10
Analysis:
18. As per the settled practice and law and the guidance of the Hon‟ble
Apex Court, the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased shall be
taken into consideration. The deceased was aged about „24‟ years. The
multiplier applicable to the age group „24‟ years is „18‟. The income of the
deceased, as per Ex.A9 is Rs.6,000/- per month. P.W.3 deposed supporting
the document Ex.A9. Therefore, the income mentioned under Ex.A9 can be
accepted. The same can be adopted with an addition of 30% towards future
prospects. Then, the income of the deceased can be accepted at Rs.7,800/-
per month and Rs.93,600/- per annum. Since the deceased was unmarried,
if 50% of the income is deducted towards the personal expenditure of the
deceased, the contribution to the claimants would be Rs.46,800/- per annum
and the same can be considered as multiplicand. When the multiplier „18‟ is
applied, the entitlement of claimants for compensation under the head of
loss of dependency is Rs.8,42,400/-. Towards medical expenditure, the
claimants are entitled for Rs.50,000/- in view of Ex.A6 and X-ray vouchers
etc. Towards funeral expenditure and loss of estate, the claimants are
entitled for Rs.15,000/- under each head.
19. Further, the claimants are entitled for loss of consortium at
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of filial consortium.
20. 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:
11
Head Compensation Fixed by this
awarded by Court
the learned MACT
(i) Loss of dependency Rs.1,62,000/- Rs.8,42,400/-
(ii) Medical expenditure Rs.43,500/- Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of estate -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Loss of Consortium -Nil- Rs.80,000/-
@ Rs.40,000/- to
each claimant
(v) Funeral expenses Rs.8,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.2,13,500/- Rs.10,02,400/-
Interest (per annum) 7.5% 6%
In view of long
lapse of time and
considering the
facts and
circumstances of
the case
21. 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.10,02,400/- 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 30.11.2011 passed by the learned MACT in M.O.P.No.442 of 2010
require modification accordingly.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants
are otherwise entitled:-
22. 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
what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to
refer the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in:
12
(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 new
cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-
bound to award just compensation.”
5
(2003) 2 SCC 274
6
2020 (04) SCC 413
7
(2019) 2 SCC 192
13
Point No.2:
23. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows:
(i) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.O.P.No.442
of 2010 at Rs.2,13,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,02,400/- 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 / mother of the deceased is entitled to
Rs.6,02,400/- with proportionate interest and costs.
(b) Claimant No.2 / father of the deceased is entitled to
Rs.4,00,000/- with proportionate interest.
(iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the learned MACT are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent
No.2 / Insurance Company 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.
14
(b) If the claimants fail to comply v(a) above, the respondent No.2
/ Insurance Company 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.
24. 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 ✓
15
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A No.912 of 2014
28th July, 2026
Knr
