Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Chelyanam Krishnavenidhyara Sarma … vs Sh.Jyothi Malhotra And Another on 9 May, 2025
APHC010421642012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
4357/2012
Between:
Chelyanam Krishnavenidhyara Sarma [died] ...APPELLANT(S)
And 2 Others and Others
AND
Sh Jyothi Malhotra And Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA
2. .
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU
2. .
The Court made the following:
2
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
MACMA No.4357 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Legal representatives of the deceased in an automobile
accident are aggrieved of the inadequacy of compensation and
assailed the award dated 28.01.2009 of the learned Chairman,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District
Judge, Guntur in MVOP.No.202 of 2007 and preferred this appeal
under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the offending
vehicle. R2 herein/ New India Assurance Company Limited is the
insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. Heard arguments of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, the learned
counsel for appellants and Sri A.Satish Babu, the learned counsel
for insurance company.
4. Basically, three facts are needed to be established by the
claimants for assessing the compensation in the case of death.
a. Age of the deceased
b. Income of the deceased
c. The number of dependents
3
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
5. Further the issues to be determined by the tribunal to arrive
at the loss of dependency are
i. Additions or deductions to be made for arriving to the
income of the deceased
ii. The deduction to be made towards the personal living
expenses of the deceased
iii. The multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the
deceased
6. In the light of the above principles, the rival contentions
require consideration for which the following aspects are required
to be noticed: –
7. Sri Ch.Sathish Kumar is the deceased in this case. He was
born on 07.08.1981/Ex.A9 attested copy of SSC certificate. The
subject accident occurred on 10.07.2006 and in the accident he
sustained serious injuries and was admitted into the hospital and
died on that day. Thus, by the date of his death, he was aged 24
years.
8. The deceased Sathish Kumar was a graduate in commerce
and possessed of Diploma in Computer Education in
Accounts/Ex.A10 and A11. He was selected as Accounts Officer
in Pathikari Power Private Limited, Shimla on a consolidated
4
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
monthly pay of Rs.20,000/- / Ex.A6 and A7. On 10.07.2006, he
went to the company in pursuance of the letter of appointment
and joined there and in the evening at about 04.00 pm, he was in
front of the office standing on the side of the road at which time a
truck bearing registration No. HP 33/2865 came at high speed
and its driver was rash or negligent and dashed him on his rear
side leading to infliction of serious injuries on his body. He was
immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Mandi in the
Company vehicle where the doctors declared him dead as
evidenced by Ex.A3/death certificate and Ex.A5/certificate of
medical officer. The incident was reported to police and Gohar
Police Station registered Cr.No.104 of 2006 and issued
FIR/Ex.A1 and the dead body was subjected to Post
Mortem/Ex.A2.
9. His parents and sister praying for compensation of
Rs.28,50,000/- filed a petition under section 163A and 166 of the
MV Act showing the owner of the vehicle as R1 and the insurance
company as R2. Both filed their written statements opposing the
claim. The owner contended that the vehicle holds valid and
effective insurance policy and the vehicle was entrusted to the
driver who was having valid and effective driving licence and
5
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
there was no fault on part of the driver of the truck. Insurance
company contended that the death was not out of rash or
negligent driving of the driver of the truck and it was the fault of
the deceased that led to his death and prayed for dismissal of the
claim.
10. Learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for
trial:-
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of Truck bearing No HP 33/2865 and
that resulted in causing the death of the deceased
Chayanam Sathish Kumar?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if
so, to what amount and against whom?
3. To what relief?
11. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A11 and
Ex.X1 were produced on behalf of the claimants. Respondents
did not adduce oral or documentary evidence.
12. After considering the evidence on record and the
contentions raised on both sides, the learned claims tribunal
concluded saying that the deceased was not at all at fault and the
accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the
offending truck. It fastened liability of compensation on both the
6
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
respondents therein. It considered Rs.7,000/- as the monthly
income and considered the age of the mother of the deceased at
42 years and applied multiplier No.12.79 and granted
• Rs.10,08,000/- towards loss of dependency
• Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate
• Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses
• Rs.5,000/- towards transportation
Thus, total compensation of Rs.10,31,000/- was granted.
13. During the pendency of the claim petition, the father of the
deceased who was one of the claimants died and that was
recorded. It passed the award in the following terms: –
“In the result, petition is allowed awarding
compensation of (Rs. thirty one 10.98,000/- (Rupees Ten
lakh thirty one thousand only) payable by respondents 1
and 2 along with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of
petition i.e 28-2-07 till the date of deposit and also to pay
the proportionate costs of the petition. Respondents 1 and
2 are directed to deposit the award amount within one
month from the date of this judgment. After deposit 3rd
petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs
only) with interest there on and the 2nd petitioner for the
balance amount with interest and costs of the petition. The
amount awarded to 3rd petitioner is permitted to withdraw
her share and 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) and the balance
amount of the 2nd petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit in
any nationalized bank for a period of 36 months and
thereafter she is at liberty to withdraw the same.”
7
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
14. In the present appeal, the learned counsel for claimants
contended that claims tribunal committed errors in the following
aspects
• Instead of considering the age of the deceased, it
considered the age of the mother of the deceased
• Future prospects were not considered at all
• Under the conventional heads, inadequate amounts were
granted
• Deduction towards personal living expenses of the
deceased were excessively made by the claims tribunal
• Incorrect rate of interest was granted.
Learned counsel further contended saying that the tribunal
was unreasonable in not considering the pay/ salary of the
deceased as mentioned in Ex.A7.
15. Opposing the above contention, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2/ insurance company contended that Ex.A7 was
created only for the purpose of securing more compensation.
That the claim petition was not maintainable as it was filed both
under sections 163A and 166 of the MV Act. That at any rate,
what was granted by the claims tribunal was just compensation
requiring no interference.
8
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
16. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is
Whether the impugned award suffers from factual and
legal errors requiring any modification as contended by the
appellants?
POINT: –
17. On death of a person, the legal representatives are entitled
to make a claim for compensation. The said compensation could
be claimed under section 163A of the MV Act. In such cases, by
virtue of Sub-section 2 therein, the claimants were not obliged to
plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim has
been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of
the owner of the vehicle or of any other person. A claim made
under section 163A of the MV Act would be decided through a
structured formula basis.
18. The legal representatives of the deceased are also entitled
to maintain a claim for compensation under section 166 of the MV
Act. In such instances they are required to plead and prove fault
on part of that person who drove the motor vehicle leading to the
death of the person.
19. At one point of time, there was a belief among the
claimants that a claim under section 163A was only an interim
9
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
measure whereas a claim under section 166 was a final measure.
During evolution of precedent, it was settled that a decision of a
claim prosecuted under section 163A was a final award of
compensation similar to that of an order of compensation passed
under section 166 of the MV Act. That aspect of the law is no
longer in dispute. However, the legal dispute that has cropped up
in this case is that the claimants filed their claim petition
mentioning section 163A as well as 166 of the MV Act and that is
objected to by the learned counsel for R2/ insurance company
stating that both these provisions stand contrary to each other as
in one case, the party was not obliged to plead and prove of fault
while in the other case, the party was obliged to plead and prove
fault. If a claim is made under both the provisions, it deserves
dismissal.
20. Having considered the above submissions, one is required
to notice the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs United
India Insurance Company Limited1 which was reiterated by
their Lordships in Valsamma Chacko Vs M.A.Titto2. In Deepal
Girishbhai Soni‘s case. Their Lordships held that the remedy for
1
(2004) 5 SCC 385
2
2025 0 Supreme (SC) 526
10
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
payment of compensation both under sections 163A and 166
cannot be pursued simultaneously. The claimant thus must elect
to go either for proceedings under section 163A or for
proceedings under section 166 of the MV Act. Nothing contrary is
brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for R2.
21. In the light of the above principles of law, the case at hand
must be examined.
A perusal of the claim petition and the evidence of
witnesses do indicate that the claimants have specifically pleaded
and stated that the accident and the resultant death were out of
rash or negligent act on part of the driver of the offending truck.
The impugned award of the claims tribunal on its reading gives a
complete opinion that the learned claims tribunal extensively dealt
with the aspect of fault “rash or negligent driving on part of the
driver” of the offending vehicle and finally concluded on evidence
that the entire fault was only with the driver of the offending
vehicle. All that makes it clear that the claimants opted or elected
to pursue the case only under section 166 of the MV Act. Their
mention of section 163A in the claim petition is thus superfluous.
In these circumstances, this court holds that there is no illegality
11
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
in the claim petition that was filed and there is no merit in the
contention raised by the learned counsel for R2.
22. The findings of the claims tribunal on the following aspects
remained undisputed before this court. That the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence
and the said vehicle was covered by subsisting valid and
enforceable insurance policy issued by R2/ insurance company.
Ex.A7 discloses that the salary to be paid per month to the
deceased was Rs.20,000/-. It is undisputed that on the day when
he joined, he suffered accident and died. As per the evidence of
PW.2/ Sri Bippin kumar Rana who works in the same company
where the deceased joined was that it was a consolidated pay
and since the employee died on the day of joining, he was yet to
receive any salary in real terms. Learned counsel for R2 contends
that Ex.A7 is falsely created for claim purpose. This contention
has no merit since such contention was never spoken to by any
witness on behalf of the insurance company when the trial took
place before the claims tribunal. No evidence was brought on
record to question the credibility of Ex.A7. For people who are
living in different parts of the country, it is difficult to contend that
they brought Ex.A7 from Himachal Pradesh and put a false
12
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
witness in the form of PW.2. The incident of death has never
been in dispute. In such circumstances, there is nothing to
castigate the genuineness of Ex.A7. Therefore, the contention of
R2 is negatived.
23. For someone’s earnings in the form of a salary, it is not
always required that he must have received the salary. There are
unfortunate situations such as the present one where newly
joined employee died on the same day without receiving any part
of his salary. Had he survived for a period of one month, he would
have received his salary and that salary is undoubtedly only what
is mentioned in terms of Ex.A7. Therefore, one is required to
record that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.20,000/-.
It was a fixed pay/ consolidated pay. In those cases where the
person aged below 40 years is on a fixed pay suffers an accident
and dies, his future prospects are to be considered by adding
40% to the salary 3 which comes to Rs.28,000/-. The impugned
award fails to consider anything towards future prospects and
therefore requires modification.
24. Deceased was a bachelor. The claimants were his parents
and sister. In those cases where the deceased of a motor
3
National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680
13
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
accident is a bachelor, 50% of his income must be deducted
towards his possible personal living expenses. As one would
notice that the salary having not been paid and received, there
was no pay slip to disclose Tax Deduction at Source. Net income
has to be arrived at only after deduction of income tax. If 10% of it
is considered towards income tax, it comes to Rs.2,800/-. Thus,
the net income comes to Rs.25,200/-. Since he is a bachelor,
50% of it is to be deducted towards his possible personal living
expenses which comes to Rs.12,600/-. Thus, his net pay per
month is Rs.12,600/-. Per annum it comes to Rs.1,51,200/-. Since
the deceased was 24 years, the relevant multiplier is 18 4.
Therefore, Rs.27,21,600/- is granted towards loss of dependency.
Learned claims tribunal failed in applying appropriate principles of
law and granted only Rs.10,08,000/- towards loss of dependency
which cannot be maintained. Having considered the facts and
circumstances, various amounts of compensation under
conventional heads does not require any modification.
25. 7.5% interest per annum was granted by the claims
tribunal. It seems at the relevant time when the award was
passed the rate of interest granted by the nationalized banks was
4
Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (6) SCC 121
14
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
the same. Therefore, there is no flaw in what was granted by the
claims tribunal. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the
appellants.
26. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Order dated
28.01.2009 in MVOP.No.202 of 2007 of the learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Guntur is modified to the extent of enhancing
the compensation awarded from Rs.10,31,000/- to Rs.27,21,600/-
with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realization. Respondent No.2/ The New India Assurance
Company Limited is directed to pay the compensation along with
accrued interest within 30 days from the date of this order before
the claims tribunal after giving due credit to the amounts paid if
any. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 09.05.2025
Dvs
15
Dr.VRKS,J
MACMA.No.4357 of 2012
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
MACMA No. 4357 of 2012
Date: 09.05.2025
Dvs
