Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Munduru Kotaiah vs P Janaki Rami Reddy on 6 August, 2026
1
Date of reserved for orders :08.05.2026
Date of pronouncement :06.08.2026
Date of uploading :06.08.2026
APHC010065342014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1708/2014
Between:
1. MUNDURU KOTAIAH, S/O. PEDA KOTAIAH R/O. GOGULAPADU
VILLAGE, ROMPICHERLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. MARELLA GEETHA DEVI, W/O. VEERANJANEYULU R/O.
VISHNUKUNDIANA NAGAR, VINUKONDA.
3. MARELLA GEETHA JAYANTHI, D/O.KOTAIAH R/O. GOGULAPADU
VILLAGE, ROMPACHERLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. MARELLA GEETHA ARUNDATHI, D/O.KOTAIAH R/O.
GOGULAPADU VILLAGE, ROMPACHERLA MANDAL, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
5. MARELLA GEETHA DHANA LAKSHMI, D/O.KOTAIAH R/O.
GOGULAPADU VILLAGE, ROMPACHERLA MANDAL, GUNTUR
DISTRICT. (APPELLANTS 5 AND 6 MINORS REP. BY THEIR
FATHER I.E., 1ST
6. MARELLA SWATHI, D/O.KOTAIAH R/O. GOGULAPADU VILLAGE,
ROMPACHERLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (APPELLANTS 5
AND 6 MINORS REP. BY THEIR FATHER I.E., 1ST
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. P JANAKI RAMI REDDY, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM REDDY (OWNER
OR HYDRALIC EXCAVATOR AP31 BCTR 8307) R/O. RAJAGUNTA
2
VILLAGE, ALIVELUMANGAPURAM KANNAVARAM POST,
SATYAVEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
2. ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REP.BY ITS
MANAGER, 4TH FLOOR, OSMAN PLAZA, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD. [COVER NOTE NO. 3004/B/00-MISC-D, VALID FROM
31-6-2007 TO 30-6-2008, ISSUED BY NELLOR OFFICE (231-006)]
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court to set aside
the judgment and decree passed in MVOP.No. 1164 of 2007 on the file of
the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional District &
Sessions Judge (FTC), at Guntur, dated 25-11-2008 and grant the
compensation upto Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of the filing the main O.P. and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2010(MACMAMP 786 OF 2010
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 339 days in filing the CMA. against the
Judgment and Award in M.V.O.P.No. 1164 of 2007 on the file of Motor
Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional District & Sessions
Judge (FTC), at Guntur, dated 25-11-2008.
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. .
2. S PRANATHI
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1708 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. One Mundru Siva Koteswaramma (hereinafter referred to as “the
deceased”) died in a road traffic accident on 09.08.2007. Her husband and
children, being the legal heirs and dependents, filed M.V.O.P.No.1164 of
2007 and the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional
District & Session Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet (for short “the
learned MACT”), under the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008,
awarded compensation of Rs.1,39,500/- in favour of the claimants.
Contending that the same is inadequate, the present appeal is filed.
Case of the claimants:
2. The 1st petitioner is the husband and the other claimants are the
daughters of the deceased. They are the only legal heirs and dependents of
the deceased. The deceased was aged about 45 years, hale and healthy.
She was engaged in agricultural operations and gazing buffaloes, selling
milk and supporting the family in all respects.
3. On the fateful date i.e. 09.08.2007, she went to the fields to gaze the
buffaloes. At about 04:00 p.m., she was sleeping under a tree near the
outskirts of Gogulapadu Village, Rompicherla, within the limits of
Rompicherla Police Station. At that time, the Hydraulic Excavator bearing
No.AP 31 BCTR 8307 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”)
4
came from the canal side in a rash and negligent manner and ran over her,
causing instantaneous death. The petitioners lost all support of the
deceased.
4. A case in Crime No.62 of 2007 for the offence under Section 304-A
IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle owned by
respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2.
Hence, both respondents are liable to pay compensation.
5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned MACT.
6. 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 respondent No.2:
7. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation and income of the deceased,
death of deceased due to the accident and dependency of the claimants.
The deceased himself was negligent while crossing the road. Therefore,
the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. There was no policy
coverage to the offending vehicle. The cheque issued towards premium
was dishonoured for the reason of insufficien6tcy of funds. Hence, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
Evidence:
8. Claimant No.3 was examined as P.W.1. One Velama Venkateswarlu,
an eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2 and the claimants
5
relied on certified copies of Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Charge Sheet, Ex.A3-Post
Mortem Certificate, Ex.A4-Inquest Report and Ex.A5-MVI report.
9. On behalf of the respondents, one J. Sravan Kumar, Legal Manager
of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and the respondent
Insurance Company relied on Ex.B1-letter dated 21.08.2007 addressed to
respondent No.1 informing dishonour of cheque.
10. Ex.B2 is the certificate of posting. Ex.B3 is the legal notice got issued
to respondent No.1. In Ex.B3 there is reference to the present case filed by
the claimants. This suggests that the notice was issued after initiation of the
legal proceedings. Ex.B4 is the letter addressed to Additional Licensing
Authority, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. The returned cover indicates that the
notice sent to respondent No.1 was returned unserved.
Findings of the learned MACT:
11. P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident, was examined. Ex.A1-FIR,
Ex.A2-Charge sheet, Ex.A3-Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.A4-Inquest Report
and Ex.A5-MVI Report are sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver
of the offending vehicle.
12. The claimants hails from the lowest strata of an agricultural family.
The objection as to dishonor of cheque does not deserve any consideration.
13. The income of the deceased is claimed at Rs.3,000/- per month, but
for want of proof, Rs.1,500/- per month is taken by the learned MACT. After
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased
is accepted at Rs.10,000/- per annum. Multiplier „13‟ is applied. The
6
petitioners/claimants are found entitled for Rs.1,30,000/- under the head of
loss of dependency, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all,
learned MACT awarded Rs.1,39,500/-.
Arguments in the appeal:
For the claimants:
14(i). The compensation awarded is very meagre.
(ii). Taking notional income is not proper.
(iii). The claimants are entitled for more compensation.
For the Insurance Company:
15(i). The defence as to dishonor of cheque issued by the owner of the
offending vehicle is ignored by the learned MACT.
(ii). Negligence of the deceased is the cause for the accident and the
same is ignored.
(iii). There are no grounds to interfere.
16. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful
consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
Scope of appeal :
17. This is an appeal by the claimants. The Insurance Company did not
choose to file any appeal. Therefore, whether the compensation awarded is
just and reasonable alone shall be the subject matter of this appeal
apparently.
7
18. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
(1) Whether the compensation of Rs.1,39,500/- awarded by the
learned MACT under the impugned orders requires any
modification? If so, on what grounds and to which extent?
(2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
Quantum:
Precedential guidance:
19(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.
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
1
2009 (6) SCC 121
2
2017(16) SCC 680
8
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.
Just Compensation:
20. 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
3
(2018) 18 SCC 130
4
(2013) 9 SCC 54
9
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:
21. The age of deceased, as per Post-mortem certificate is „45‟ years.
Upon considering the socio-economic circumstances of the year 2007 and
the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased was engaged in gazing
buffaloes etc., her income can be taken at Rs.80/- per day i.e. Rs.2,400/-
per month. By taking note of the age of the deceased and her occupation,
20% can be added towards future prospects, with which the income of the
deceased can be taken at around Rs.3,000/- per month. On deducting 1/3rd
towards personal expenditure, the contribution of the deceased to the family
can be accepted at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum, which
can be considered as the multiplicand. For the age group of 45 years, the
multiplier applicable is „14‟. Upon application of the same, the claimants are
entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to
Rs.3,36,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 14).
10
22. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the
conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium
(claimant No.1-spousl consortium and Claimant Nos.2 to 6-parental
consortium), Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate.
23. 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.1,30,000/- Rs.3,36,000/-
(ii) Loss of estate Rs.2,500/- Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Loss of Consortium Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,40,000/-
@ to claimant No.1 / @ Rs.40,000/- to
Husband of the deceased each claimant
(iv) Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.1,39,500/- Rs.6,06,000/-
Interest (per annum) 7.5% 6%
24. 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.6,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization and the judgment and
decree dated 25.11.2008 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.1164
of 2007 require modification accordingly.
11
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants
are otherwise entitled:-
25. 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:
(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
5
(2003) 2 SCC 274
6
2020 (04) SCC 413
7
(2019) 2 SCC 192
12same 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.2:
26. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows:
(i) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.1164 of 2007 at Rs.1,39,500/- with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to
Rs.6,06,000/- 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) The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned equally among
all the claimants.
(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.
13
(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 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.
27. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal
shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:06.08.2026
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.1708 of 2014 06.08.2026 Knr
