Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The Cholamandalam vs Himachal Road on 1 May, 2026
1
Date of reserved for Judgment :11.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement :01.05.2026
Date of uploading :04.05.2026
APHC010393222012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1077/2012
Between:
1. THE CHOLAMANDALAM, REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, 1ST
FLOOR, VENKATA PLAZA-II, D.NO. 6-3-698/3, PANJAGUTTA,
HYDERABAD.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. SHAIK JAINABEE ANO, W/O. LATE JOHNY, D.NO. 4-515-B-2,
EKALAVYA NAGAR, OPP : TO RAVINDRANADH SCHOOL, INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2. A NAGA RAJU, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AUTO AP 27 Y 1857, KONETI
VEEDHI, MARKAPUR POST & TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 2347 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 stay
2
the execution of decree and Judgement passed in MVOPNo. 190 of 2011, dated
17-1-2012 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I
Addl. District Judge, Ongole, pending the final disposal of the main appeal and
pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP 2882 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 order passed in MACMAMP NO. 2347 of 2012 in MACMA No.
1077/2012 dt. 26-4-2012 and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 2485 OF 2013
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
permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by the first respondent in
MVOP.No. 190 of 2011 on the file of the MACT-cum-First Additional District
Judge, Ongole. Prakasam District
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. KOTA SUBBA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1531/2012
Between:
1. SHAIK JAINABEE, W/O.LATE JOHNY, D.NO. 4-515-B-2,
EKALAVYANAGAR,OPPOSITE TO RAVINDRANAGH SCHOOL,
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MARKAPUR, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, A.P.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. A NAGARAJU ANO, S/O. VENKATESHWARLU, OWNER OF THE AUTO
AP 27 Y 1857, KONETIVEEDHI, MARKAPUR POST & TOWN,
3
PRAKASHAM DISTRICT,A.P.
2. CHOLAMANDALM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, VENKATA PLAZA-11, D.NO.
698/3, PANJAGUNTTA, HYDERABAD - 500 082, A.P.,
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. RAVI KUMAR PONAKAMPALLI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. .
2. KOTA SUBBA RAO
The Court made the following:
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1077 And 1531 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. One Shaik Jainabee made a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole [for short „the learned MACT‟],
vide M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2011, seeking compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the
death of her son Shaik Baji [hereinafter referred as „the deceased‟]. The claim was
partly allowed, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- vide order and decree
dated 17.01.2012 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.. and other incidental
directions.
2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed MACMA
No.1531 of 2012. Questioning the liability and quantum of compensation, the
Insurance Company filed the appeal in MACMA No.1077 of 2012 and both the
appeals are heard together.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as
the claimant/petitioner and the respondents, with reference to their status before
the learned MACT.
5
Case of the claimants:
4. [i] The deceased is the son of the claimant, aged 18 years, working as
a Carpenter and Plaster of Paris worker earning Rs.250/- to 300/- per day.
[ii] On 28.01.2011 at about 01.30 a.m. while the deceased was
travelling in an Auto bearing No.AP 27 Y 1857 [herein after referred to as the
offending vehicle], reached near petrol bunk on Markapur to Pothily road, the
respondent No.1, being driver of the auto hit the lorry which was going ahead,
whereby the auto turned turtle and the deceased sustained multiple injuries. He
was shifted to Government Hospital, Markapur and was referred to Government
General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. While undergoing treatment at
Government General Hospital, Guntur the deceased succumbed to injuries on
01.02.2011.
[iii] Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the auto.
[iv] 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the
offending vehicle. Hence both are liable to pay compensation.
[v] The deceased was having one minor brother and sister. Since the
claimant herein being mother of the deceased, laid a claim and entitled for just
and reasonable compensation.
5. The 1st respondent, owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte.
6
Case of the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company:-
6. (i) The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, age, occupation, and
income of the deceased, death of the deceased due to accident, dependency of
the claimant.
(ii) The accident occurred due to negligence to the driver of the lorry.
There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. The petition is bad
for non-joinder of the owner and the Insurance Company of the lorry.
(iii) The driver of the auto is not having an effective driving licence.
There is no valid permit for the auto to ply on the road.
(iv) In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive
and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
Issues:
7. Learned MACT framed issues touching the accident and negligence of the
driver of the auto and the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and its
quantification, vide issues No.1 and 2.
Evidence before the Learned MACT:-
On behalf of the petitioner/claimant:
8. (i) Claimant was examined as PW1, she has stated about the accident,
death of the deceased due to accident, age, occupation and income of the
7
deceased and dependency of the claimant and her other children on the income
of the deceased.
(ii) One Jidugu Rangaiah- PW2, eyewitness to the accident, examined
as PW2. He has stated about the accident, negligence of the driver of the auto
and that the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the auto, and denied the
negligence of the driver of the lorry.
(iii) Ex.A1 is the FIR, Ex.A2 is the inquest report, Ex.A3 is the Post
Mortem Examination report, Ex.A4 is the MVI report, Ex.A5 is the charge sheet
laid against the 1st respondent.
On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company:-
9. [i] On behalf of the 2nd respondent, Senior Manager (Claims) was
examined as RW1 and has relied on Ex.-B1 -copy of Insurance Policy; Ex.B2-
attested copy of the proceedings of the driving licence extract; Ex.B3 – attested
copy of registration certificate of crime vehicle.
[ii] RW 1 evidence is that the crime vehicle is a passenger auto, Ex.B1
covering the risk of (3 +1) persons only; in case of violation of the conditions they
are entitled to recover on payment; he do not know that respondent No.1 is
whether owner-cum- driver. As per Ex.B2- respondent No.1 is having driving
licence to drive the auto rickshaw, non-transport and as per Motor Vehicles
Rules, transport endorsement can be granted after one year. He stated that he
do not know whether there is any disqualification to the 1st respondent to drive
8
the auto. It is relevant to note that charge sheet has been laid under Section
187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but not under the provisions relating to violation of
driving licence.
Findings of the learned MACT:-
10. (i) With the evidence of PW.2, the accident and negligence of the driver
of the auto stands acceptable. Further, the crime record Ex.A1 – certified copy of
FIR, A2-Inquest report, Ex.A3- postmortem report and Ex.A4-MVI report, Ex.A5-
Charge sheet corroborates the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, the negligence of
the driver of the auto is accepted.
(ii) Accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the auto.
Therefore, 1st respondent is liable and the 2nd respondent is liable in view of the
Insurance Policy. The 2nd respondent may recover on payment.
(iii) The age of the deceased is „18‟ years. Income can be notionally
acceptable at Rs.40,000/- per annum, particularly in the context of the claim
being under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. As the deceased is unmarried 50% of
the income to be deducted. Hence, the entitlement of the claimant for
compensation under loss of dependency comes Rs.3,20,000/-. Apart from that,
the claimant is entitled for funeral expenditure at Rs.5,000/- and loss of estate at
Rs.5,000/-. In total, the petitioner/claimant is entitled for Rs.3,30,000/-.
9
Arguments in the appeal:-
For the petitioner/claimant/appellant:-
11. The multiplier adopted is not proper, deduction of 50% is excessive,
interest granted is very low.
For the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company:-
12. (i) There is violation of conditions of Insurance Policy by the owner of
the offending vehicle.
(ii) Pay and recovery is not automatic.
(iii) Quantum of compensation granted is excessive.
13. Perused the material on record.
14. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both
sides.
15. The points that arise for determination in these appeals are:
1. Whether the impugned order and decree dated 17.01.2012 passed
by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2011 on the aspects relating to
entitlement of claimant for compensation, liability of the 2nd respondent –
Insurance Company and the quantification of compensation are proper? Or
require any interference? If so, on what grounds and to which extent?
2. What is the result of MACMA No.1077 of 2012?
3. What is the result of MACMA No.1531 of 2012?
10
Point No.1:
Accident and Negligence:-
16. The findings on this point involve discussion on the negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle and the compliance with conditions of
Insurance Policy etc.
Statutory Guidance:
17 (i). As per Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State
Governments are entitled to make rules for the purpose of carrying effect to the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(ii). In relation to claims before the learned MACT, Rule 455 to Rule 476
of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, vide Chapter No.11 provides
comprehensive guidance. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989, the claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim basing on the
registration certificate of the vehicle, Insurance Policy, copy of FIR and Post-
mortem certificate etc.
Precedential Guidance:
18. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation1, in para 15 observed as follows:
“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic
view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be1
2009 (13) SCC 530
11possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said
purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective
stories set forth by both the parties..”
Reasoning and Findings:
19. In the light of the statutory and precedential guidance and as the claim is
laid in terms of Section 163-A of M.V. Act, proof of accident is enough and there
is no need to prove the negligence. Here, the accident and involvement of
offending vehicle are shown. Therefore, on the point relating to accident and
negligence, the findings of the Learned MACT require no interference.
Entitlement and Liability:-
20. (i) Claimant is mother of the deceased. Therefore, she is entitled.
(ii) Crime vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The only
violation alleged against the driver is that there is no transport category license
for driving the auto.
(iii) It is relevant to note that in respect of Light Motor Vehicles, the
objection of driving licence as to transport and non-transport category is no
longer res integra, and does not merit any consideration in the context of
judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The legal position as to a person
holding of non-transport category driving licence of „Light Motor Vehicle‟ driving
transport vehicle has been addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mukund
12
Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2 [Mukund
Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited3 [Mukund Dewangan(2017)].
(iv) Further, the reference made on the point whether “a person holding
a licence for a „Light Motor Vehicle‟ class non transport can drive a „Transport
Vehicle‟ without a specific endorsement, provided the „Gross Vehicle Weight
(GVW)‟ of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kgs?” is answered by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Rambha Devi and Others4 at length and the observation are made under the
caption of conclusions are as follows:
“131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as
under:–
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)
class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a „Transport Vehicle‟ without
needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV
Act specifically for the „Transport Vehicle‟ class. For licensing
purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate
classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility
requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-
rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the
necessity of a specific requirement to drive a „Transport Vehicle,‟
does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21)
of the MV Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act
and MV Rules generally for driving „transport vehicles‟ would apply
only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight2
(2016) 4 SCC 298
3
(2019) 12 SCC 816
4
2024 SCC Online SC 3183
13exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. „medium goods vehicle‟, „medium passenger
vehicle‟, „heavy goods vehicle‟ and „heavy passenger vehicle‟.
(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but
for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of
any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if
certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered
in the said judgment.”
(v) For the reasons stated above and in view of the legal position settled
by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation do not warrant interference. Even the pay and recovery is not
necessary in the context of the case in view of the legal position settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court.
Quantum of compensation:
Precedential guidance:
21. (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.5 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 Others6 case directed for adding future prospects at
50% in respect of permanent employment where the deceased is below 40
5
2009 (6) SCC 121
6
2017(16) SCC 680
14
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 Others7, 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.
Just Compensation:
22. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others8, 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,7
(2018) 18 SCC 130
8
(2013) 9 SCC 54
15(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.
Analysis, reasoning and Finding:-
23. (i). The deceased was aged about „18‟ years. He was attending
Carpenter works and Plaster of Paris works. No specific income proof is there.
Income can be taken notionally. In view of the skilled labour work, in which the
deceased was engaged, learned MACT has taken the income at the rate of
Rs.40,000/-, and adopted the Multiplier „16‟ as per 2nd schedule of M.V. Act.
16
(ii). It is relevant to note that as per Sarla Verma’s case, multiplier
applicable to the age group of „18‟ is „18‟. Since the deceased died unmarried,
50% of the income is fit to be deducted towards personal expenditure where by
the annual income can be taken at Rs.20,000/-, which can be considered as
multiplicand.
(iii) Upon application of the multiplier the entitlement of the
claimant/petitioner for the compensation under the head of loss of dependency,
will comes to [20,0000/- x „18‟] Rs.3, 60,000/-.
(iv) Further, the claimant/petitioner is 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/- towards filial consortium can be awarded
in terms of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and
Ors‘s case, Pranay Sethi and Ors‘s case and Magma General Insurance
Company‟s case.
24. In view of the reasons and the 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 the Court
learned MACT
(i) Loss of dependency Rs.3,20,000/- Rs.3,60,000/-
(ii) Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-
17
(iii) Loss of Consortium -Nil- Rs.40,000/-
(iv) Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.3,30,00/- Rs.4,30,000/-
Interest (per annum) 6% 7.5%
25. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the
point No.1 is answered concluding that the claimant/petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization and the order and decree dated
17.01.2012 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2011 require
modification accordingly. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point Nos.2 & 3:
26. In the result,
[I]. the appeal in MACMA No.1531 of 2012 is partly allowed as
follows:-
a. the compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.190
of 2011 at Rs.3,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is
modified and enhanced to Rs.4,30,000/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
b. Respondents before the learned MACT are liable to pay the
compensation. However, Respondent No.2 is liable in view of the
Insurance Policy.
18
c. Time for payment /deposit of balance amount is two (02) months.
(i) If the claimant/petitioner furnish the bank account number within
(15) days from today, the respondents shall deposit the amount
directly into the bank account of the claimant/petitioner and file
the necessary proof before the learned MACT.
(ii) If the claimant fail to comply with clause (c)(i) above, the 2nd
respondent shall deposit the amount before the learned MACT
and the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at once on
deposit.
[II]. the appeal, in MACMA No.1077 of 2012 is dismissed.
[III]. There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeals.
[IV]. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal
shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:01.05.2026
Pnr
19
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1077 and 1531 of 2012
01.05.2026
Pnr
