Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kalluri Kallaiah And 3 Others vs Himachal Road on 24 March, 2026
1
Date of reserved for Judgment :23.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement :24.03.2026
Date of uploading :24.03.2026
APHC010476042012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1189/2012
Between:
1. KALLURI KALLAIAH AND 3 OTHERS, S/O SUBBARAYUDU R/O
PENUGUDURUPADU VILLAGE AND POST, TSUNDURU MANDAL,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. KALLURI CHENCHURAMAIAH, S/O KALLAIAH R/O
PENUGUDURUPADU VILLAGE AND POST, TSUNDURU MANDAL,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. KALLURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O KALLAIAH R/O PENUGUDURUPADU
VILLAGE AND POST, TSUNDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. KALLURI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O KALLAIAH R/O
PENUGUDURUPADU VILLAGE AND POST, TSUNDURU MANDAL,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. AREMANDA SUDHAKAR AND ANOTHER, T.M.F. GUN R/O D.NO.03-07
OLD SC COLONY, AREEMANDA,
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.BY ITS
2
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 15/1, ARUNDALPET, GUNTUR.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be
pleased to
IA NO: 1 OF 2011(MACMAMP 2093 OF 2011
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 91 days in representing the MACMASR.NO. 5-54 of 2011
IA NO: 2 OF 2011(MACMAMP 2094 OF 2011
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 22 days in preferring the MACMA
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S A V RATNAM
2. .
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1189 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.805 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District and Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.87,500/-,
filed the present appeal questioning the just and adequate nature of
compensation.
2. The claim was laid seeking compensation for the death of one Kalluri
Koteswaramma in a motor vehicle accident. Claimant No.1 is the husband and
claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of the deceased.
3. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Auto bearing No.AP 07 TT 9032
(hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) and 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” as and how they are arrayed before the
learned MACT.
4
Case of the claimants:
5(i). On 17.06.2009 at about 11:00 a.m., while the deceased was travelling as a
pillion rider on a motorcycle near Mamillapalli cross road within the limits of
Ponnur Rural Police Station, the offending vehicle, driven by its driver came in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, causing the accident.
The deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries. She was admitted to
Government General Hospital, Guntur, but while undergoing treatment, she
succumbed to the injuries.
(ii). The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 50 years, working as a
coolie and earning Rs.100/- per day, contributing the same to the claimants. Her
death exposed the claimants to loss of dependency.
(iii). The Police registered a case under Section 304(A) of I.P.C vide Crime
No.114 of 2009 against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently a
charge sheet was filed. In view of the death of the deceased due to the accident,
the claimants are entitled for reasonable compensation.
6. Respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle, did not choose to file
any written statement.
Case of respondent No.2-Insurnace Company:
7. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of
the auto, death of deceased due to the accident, age, occupation and income of
5
the deceased, dependency of the claimants and loss of dependency due to the
death of the deceased etc. and the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle is
the cause for the accident in the form of contributory or composite negligence.
Therefore, the owner and Insurance Company of the motorcycle are necessary
parties.
Evidence before the learned MACT:
8. Claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1. He has stated about the
relationship of the claimants with deceased and the death of the deceased due to
the accident. During cross-examination, he has stated that his children are living
separately and they are not dependents. He has denied the suggestion that the
rider of the motor cycle was at fault.
9. One Chevuri Sivaparvathi was examined as P.W.2. She has stated about
the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. She stated that she, her
husband and the deceased were travelling on the motorcycle at the time of
accident. She has denied the suggestion that the rider of the motorcycle was at
fault.
10. For the respondent Insurance Company one J. Prasanthi Kumar, working
as an Assistant in the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1. He has
stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was having non transport category
6
driving licence and claimed that the negligence of the deceased was the cause of
the accident.
11. Further, one M. Suresh Babu, Senior Assistant in the Motor Vehicle
Inspector office, Tenali was examined as R.W.2. He has stated that a person
holding a non-transport category licence is entitled for a transport category
licence only after holding a non-transport category licence for one year.
12. The claimants relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Post-
mortem Certificate, Ex.A4-Motor Vehicle Inspector‟s Report and Ex.A5-Charge
Sheet.
13. The respondents relied on Ex.B1-Insurance Policy, Ex.B2-Driving Licence,
Ex.B3-Notice to owner-cum-driver, Ex.B4- Acknowledgement from the driver.
Ex.X1 is the Authorisation letter and Ex.X2 is the driving licence particulars.
Findings of the learned MACT:
On negligence:
14. Evidence of P.W.2 is sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle. The crime record corroborates the evidence of P.W.2. The
negligence on the part of the driver of the auto is proved.
On liability:
15. The licence is valid from 29.11.2008 to 23.11.2028. Respondent No.2 /
Insurance Company is not liable as Respondent No.1 committed breach,
7
particularly for want of a proper driving licence. The income of the deceased can
be taken at Rs.20/- per day and Rs.73,000/- per annum as a servant maid and
the claimants are entitled for Rs.87,500/- in all.
Arguments in the appeal:
For the claimants:
16(i). Compensation awarded is grossly inadequate.
(ii). Taking income at Rs.20/- per day is not correct.
(iii). Exoneration the respondent No.2 from liability is not correct.
For the Insurance Company:
17(i). The Insurance Company has been rightly exonerated from liability.
(ii). The quantum of compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
(iii). The claim is made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
18. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments
advanced by both sides.
Scope of the Appeal:
19. Though it is a claimants‟ appeal, since the learned MACT dismissed the
claim against respondent No.2/Insurance Company, the liability of the
respondents and the entitlement of the claimants for compensation both require
consideration.
8
20. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation against both the
respondents?
2) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants
are entitled and whether the compensation of Rs.87,500/- awarded by the
learned MACT is just and reasonable?
3) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
21. 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.
Negligence:
Statutory Guidance:
22(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
(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.
9Precedential Guidance:
23. 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 be
possible 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:
24. Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-Post-mortem Certificate, Ex.A4-
Motor Vehicle Inspector‟s Report and Ex.A5-Charge Sheet are indicating the
accident, negligence and death of deceased due to the accident.
25. P.W.2-eye witness to the accident stated about the negligence of the driver
of the auto / offending vehicle. The defence is that there was triple riding.
Whether the triple riding is the cause for the accident and whether there was
absence of negligence on the part of the auto driver require clarity. Auto driver is
not summoned and examined. What is the result of criminal case pursuant to the
charge sheet laid is not known. There is positive evidence of P.W.2 as to
negligence of the driver of the auto.
1
2009 (13) SCC 530
10
26. The deceased merely travelled as a pillion rider. Even it was to be a case
of composite negligence, every tortfeasor is fully liable to the victim. Therefore,
the defence / escape is pressed by the Insurance Company is not available to it.
The petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since
Insurance Company/respondents invited contest on negligence and made the
claimants to adduce evidence on negligence and made the Tribunal to give
findings on negligence, it can be taken that the scope of Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act is no more available as a defence to the Insurance Company.
Driving licence objection:
27. The other excuse relied on the Insurance Company is absence of proper
driving licence, which has been gained the nod of the learned MACT. It is
relevant to note that in respect of light motor vehicles, the objection of driving
licence as to transport and non-transport categories is no longer res integra.
28. The defence as to want of transport endorsement 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 Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2
[Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited3 [Mukund Dewangan(2017)].
29. 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 weight
exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. „medium goods vehicle‟, „medium passenger
vehicle‟, „heavy goods vehicle‟ and „heavy passenger vehicle‟.
3
(2019) 12 SCC 816
4
2024 SCC Online SC 3183
12(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.
30. It is relevant to note that the evidence relating to the unladen weight of the
vehicle in question is not placed by the Insurance Company. Further, if a person
driving a transport category vehicle with non-transport endorsement, where the
unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kgs, it will not entitle the
Insurance Company to claim exoneration from the liability is the settled legal
proposition, as per the Judgments referred above i.e. Mukund Dewangan vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund
Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [Mukund
Dewangan(2017)] and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited
vs. Rambha Devi and Others.
Liability:
31. For the reasons stated above and upon looking from any angle, the
exemption sought by the Insurance Company is found not tenable. Hence both
the respondents are liable to pay compensation. The point is answered
accordingly.
13
Point No.2:
Precedential Guidance:
32(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 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.
5
2009 (6) SCC 121
6
2017(16) SCC 680
14
(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:
33. 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,
(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]
7
(2018) 18 SCC 130
8
(2013) 9 SCC 54
15
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.
Reasoning and Findings:
34. Deceased was working as coolie. The learned MACT taken the occupation
of the deceased as a servant maid and taken the income at Rs.20/- per day. The
deceased was aged about 50 years. However acceptance of income at Rs.20/-
per day is not found convincing in the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly when the witnesses said that deceased was earning Rs.100/- per
day. Neither Rs.100/- nor Rs.20/- can be accepted.
35. However, upon considering socio economic circumstances of the year
2009 in which the accident occurred, this Court finds that the income of the
deceased can be taken at Rs.60/- per day and Rs.1,800/- per month as a servant
maid. The income of the deceased can be safely accepted at Rs.2,000/- per
month, including possible progress in income at least at the rate of 10%, which
comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. If 1/3rd of the same is deducted towards the
personal expenditure, the contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes to
Rs.16,000/- per annum, which can be considered as the multiplicand. For the
16
age group of „50‟ years, the applicable multiplier is „13‟. When the same is
applied, the entitlement of the claimants under the head of loss of dependency
comes to Rs.2,08,000/- (Rs.16,000/- x 13).
36. The relationship of the claimants is not disputed. There is no dependency
for claimant Nos.2 to 4. But they are legal heirs. P.W.1 stated that his children
are living separately. However, they are entitled to a share in the compensation
under the head of loss of parental consortium and loss of emotional support etc.,
if any.
37. Therefore, the claimant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for compensation under the
conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- to each claimant towards loss of consortium,
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
38. 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 awarded Fixed by this
by the learned MACT Court
(i) Loss of dependency Rs.73,000/- Rs.2,08,000/-
(ii) Loss of estate Rs.2,500/- Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Loss of Consortium Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,60,000/-
@ Rs.40,000/- to each
claimant
(iv) Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.87,500/- Rs.3,98,000/-
Interest (per annum) 7.5% 6%
17
39. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, the
point No.3 framed is answered concluding that the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.3,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization. The order and decree dated 25.10.2010
passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.805 of 2009 require modification
accordingly.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are
otherwise entitled:-
40. 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 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 Others9, 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.10 at para 33 of the judgment, as
follows:-
9
(2003) 2 SCC 274
18“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
Others11 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.”
Point No.3:
41. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows:
(i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.805 of 2009 at Rs.87,500/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.3,98,000/- with
10
2020 (04) SCC 413
11
(2019) 2 SCC 192
19interest 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/husband of the deceased is entitled for
Rs.2,48,000/- with proportionate interest and costs.
(b) Claimant Nos.2 to 4/children of the deceased are entitled for
Rs.50,000/- each with proportionate interest.
(iv) Respondents before the learned MACT are liable to pay the
compensation.
(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.
(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.
20
42. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:24.03.2026
Knr
21
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1189 of 2012
24.03.2026
Knr