Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs S Mohd Hussain 4 Ors 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
APHC010139862013
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: 1442/2013
Between:
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, O/O.VIJAYAWADA.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. S MOHD HUSSAIN 4 ORS, S/O.LATE MOHD.MOHIDDIN SAHIB,
MUSLIM, OCC: COOLIE R/O.CHINTAKUNTA [V], HALAHARVI [M],
KUNROOL DISTRICT.
2. S KHURSHEED BEE, W/O.S.MOHD.HUSSAIN, MUSLIM, OCC:
HOUSEWIFE R/O.CHINTAKUNTA [V], HALAHARVI [M], KUNROOL
DISTRICT.
3. Y MANJULA, W/O.RAGHURAM CHOUDARY, HINDU R/O.H.NO.12-
3-850, JESUS NAGAR, ANANTAPUR.
4. G SRINIVASULU, S/O.G.HANUMANTHU R/O.H.NO.6/1775,
KOVVUR NAGAR, ANANTAPUR.
5. M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL
MANAGER O/O.ANANTAPUR.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court set aside the
judgment and decree in OP No.93/2007 dated 03.07.2012 on the file of
2
Hon'ble Court of MACT cum IInd Addi. District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, and
allow the appeal in the interest of justice
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 890 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 condone the delay of 99 days in preferring the appeal in OP
No.93/2007 dated 03.07.2012 on the file of Hon'ble Court of MACT cum IInd
Addi. District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni
IA NO: 2 OF 2013(MACMAMP 1043 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 stay all further proceedings in execution of Judgment in O.P. No.
93 of 2007, dt. 3.7.2012 on the court of Hon'ble Court of MACT cum IInd
Addl. District Judge, Kurnool Adoni and to pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2013(MACMAMP 2653 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 vacate the interim order dated 20.02.2013, granted in
MACMAMP.No.1043/2013 in MACMA(SR).No.6085/2013
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. P SATYA MANJULA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER
2. R VENKAT RAO
3. INENI VENKATA PRASAD
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1442 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
I. Introductory:
1. When a Tata Hitachi machine was being carried in a lorry bearing No.
ATS 2455, due to misoperation of the machine, an accident occurred,
whereby, the Tata Hitachi fell down on the road, causing the death of one
S. Jeelan Basha (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The parents,
who were dependents and legal representatives of the deceased, laid a
claim for compensation vide M.V.O.P.No.93 of 2007 and the same was
partly allowed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II
Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (for short “the learned MACT”).
Under award and decree dated 03.07.2012, the learned MACT granted
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of petition from the date of realization,
against the owner and Insurance Company of the Tata Hitachi Machine, who
were arrayed as Respondent Nos.1 and 2, while dismissing the claim
against the claim against Respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the owner and
Insurance Company of the lorry on which the machine was being carried.
Aggrieved by the award passed, respondent No.2 before the learned MACT
viz. the Insurance Company of the Tata Hitachi Machine, filed the present
appeal.
4
2. The claimants are respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. Respondent No.3
herein is the owner of the Hitachi machine. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein
are the owner and Insurance Company of the lorry.
3. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, who were respondent Nos.1 and 3
before the learned MACT remained ex parte in the proceedings before the
learned MACT.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 / claimants and learned counsel for respondent
No.5/ Insurance Company of the lorry.
5. The Appellant Insurance Company is disputing the award in all
respects viz. (1) the entitlement of claimants, (2) the exclusive liability of the
appellant and (3) the quantification of compensation.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to
as the claimants and the respondents with reference to their status before
the learned MACT.
II. Case of the claimants:
7(i). The deceased was aged about 20 years and was working as a helper
of the Tata Hitachi Machine, earning Rs.6,000/- per month apart from
Rs.100/- batta per day. Both the claimants, being the parents of the
deceased, lost the support of the deceased, including his financial
contribution due to his sudden demise.
(ii). On 12.02.2007 at about 06:00 p.m., the driver/operator of the Tata
Hitachi Machine, who was sitting in the bottom of the Hitachi, opened the
5same from the body of the lorry and due to the negligent driving of the driver
of the lorry, the Tata Hitachi machine fell from the lorry. The deceased, who
was sitting on the Hitachi machine fell down and died on the spot. Both the
driver and operator of the lorry and the Hitachi machine are responsible for
the accident. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and Insurance
Company of the Hitachi Machine and respondent Nos.3 and 4, being the
owner and Insurance Company of the lorry, are liable to pay compensation.
(iii). Further, the specific case of the claimants is that the accident
occurred when the Supervisor of the Tata Hitachi Machine, who was sitting
in the cabin of the Tata Hitachi, negligently fell on the start button of the Tata
Hitachi due to drowsiness, whereby the lever brake was opened and the
Tata Hitachi machine self-started from the body of the lorry and fell on the
road. The Deceased, who was sitting on the body of the Hitachi, fell down
and died on the spot. The deceased was helper of the Tata Hitachi
machine. Respondent No.3 is the contractor of the said Tata Hitachi
machinery and was taking the same for the purpose of contract work of
respondent No.3.
III. Contention of respondent No.1 as per counter:
8. The driver of the Hitachi is not responsible. There was negligence on
the part of the deceased. In any event respondent Nos.2 and 4 / Insurance
Companies are liable to pay compensation.
6
IV. Contention of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company of Tata Hitachi
machine as per counter:
9. The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident and negligence of the
operator of the Hitachi machine. The accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the lorry belonging to respondent No.3. The Tata
Hitachi machine was transported in a lorry belonging to respondent No.3.
The lorry is insured with respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 is not aware of
the employment of the deceased with respondent No.3, whether the driver of
respondent No.3 drove the vehicle in a negligent manner or whether
respondent No.3 is a contractor of Tata Hitachi machinery and was taking
the same for the purpose of contract works of respondent No.3. As per the
investigation got done by respondent No.2, the accident occurred due to
negligent driving of respondent No.3 but not due to any fault of respondent
No.1 driver, hence there is no liability on respondent No.2. The Tata Hitachi
machine is not a motor vehicle unless it moves on the road. Since the
machine was loaded on the lorry of respondent No.3 for the purpose of
transportation from one place to another, there cannot be any liability on
respondent No.2.
V. Contention of respondent No.3 as per counter:
10. The negligence of the deceased is the cause for the accident. In any
event, respondent Nos.2 and 4 are liable to pay the compensation.
7
VI. Case of respondent No.4/Insurance Company of the lorry:
11(i). The petitioners shall prove what all pleaded by them with necessary
documents, including their legal heir status and entitlement.
(ii). The accident, negligence of the driver of the lorry etc. shall be proved
properly. Further, the age, occupation and income of the deceased shall be
shown with cogent evidence.
(iii). The factum of insurance of the lorry with respondent No.4 and
compliance with the conditions of policy etc. shall be proved.
(iv). The involvement of the lorry is falsely created. Negligence of the
deceased is the cause for accident. The deceased was a helper to the
Hitachi vehicle belonging to respondent No.1. Therefore, only Respondent
No.1 is liable to pay the compensation and the claimants ought to have
approached the appropriate tribunal under the Workmen‟s Compensation
Act. There is violations of the conditions of policy, including the want of
driving licence to driver of the lorry. In any event, respondent No.4 is not
liable to pay compensation.
(v). Further, the stand of respondent No.4 is that the lorry involved in the
accident was not insured with respondent No.4. Wrong cover note details
are given. Due to drowsiness and negligence of the driver/Supervisor of
Tata Hitachi, Rallapalli Narasimhulu, who was sitting in the cabin of the Tata
Hitachi, there was self start and machine fell down from the body of the lorry.
Hence, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation.
8
VII. Findings of the learned MACT:
(a) On accident and negligence:
12(i). The claimants relied on copies of the FIR-Ex.A1, charge sheet-Ex.A2,
Inquest Panchanama-Ex.A3, Post-mortem Examination Report-Ex.A4,
Policy copy-Ex.A5, another Policy copy-Ex.A6 and the Family Members
Certificate-Ex.A7.
(ii). P.W.3, one Ramana, a third party to the proceedings, stated that he
and the deceased boarded the lorry and while they were proceeding to
Bathalapalli near Velpamadugu Village, the driver of the lorry drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the lorry along
with Tata Hitachi machine turned turtle and the deceased died on the spot.
The deceased was working as helper of the Tata Hitachi. At the time of
accident, the Supervisor, Narasimhulu, was sitting in the Hitachi machine.
He is the operator of the machine.
(iii). P.W.3 admitted during cross-examination that the accident occurred
due to fault of the operator of the Tata Hitachi machine and that he has
stated before the Police that accident occurred due to the fault of the
Supervisor of Tata Hitachi machine.
(iv). R.W.1 admitted that charge sheet was laid against the driver
employed by respondent No.1. R.W.2, the owner of the lorry, stated that the
accident took place due to negligence of the Supervisor of the Tata Hitachi
Machine.
9
(v). R.W.3-Motor vehicle Inspector, stated that, as per his records, the
lorry was not insured. He gave accident information report-Ex.X2 and
Ex.X1-summons and Ex.X2 is the inspection report.
(vi). R.W.4 is the Insurance Surveyor. As per his evidence, he is a Diploma
holder in Horological Engineering. Without an ignition lock and key system,
the excavator cannot be started or moved automatically.
(vii). R.W.5 is the Senior Assistant in the office of Respondent No.4
branch stated that respondent No.3 did not insure the lorry with their
company and that respondent No.4 has served a memo asking respondent
No.3 to furnish insurance particulars. But, the same is not complied with.
From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and documentary evidence on record, it
is clear that the deceased was a helper of the Tata Hitachi machine.
(viii). It appears clearly that the Hitachi machine is a heavy machine and
when it starts moving on the body of the lorry, it will be difficult for the lorry
driver to control it. The lorry turned turtle because of the sudden movement
of the Tata Hitachi machine.
(ix). It is not the case that there are heavy ditches or that the road was
under repair and that the vehicle could not be controlled. The turbulence is
caused by the Hitachi machine and the lorry driver could not control the
vehicle. As a result, both vehicles turned turtle. The absence of precaution
from the driver of the lorry cannot be accepted, as he asked the supervisor
of Tata Hitachi machine to sit in the cabin of the machine. The driver of the
lorry also did not take all necessary precautions and he should not have
10
allowed the Supervisor to sit in the cabin of the Tata Hitachi machine,
visualizing the movement. Therefore, there is negligence on the part of both
the Supervisor as well as the lorry driver, but, the major part is on the part of
Supervisor of the Tata Hitachi machine. Therefore, the Police charge
sheeted him. Hence, the negligence is on the part of the operator of the
Tata Hitachi machine.
(b) On liability:
(x). Ex.B1 is the policy pertaining to the Tata Hitachi machine. There is no
evidence as to violation of the conditions of policy. The Policy covers the
damage to third party and the same is comprehensive policy. Therefore, the
insurer of the Tata Hitachi machine is liable to pay compensation.
(xi). Respondent No.5 deposed that the lorry was not insured on the date
of offence. When such a specific defence is there, the burden lies on the
owner of the lorry to place the insurance details. But, respondent No.3 failed
to do so. Since R.W.1 did not enquire whether the lorry was insured or not,
he is also liable in that regard. Respondent No.4 Insurance Company is not
liable to pay any compensation.
(c) Quantum:
(xii). No evidence is produced to show the income of the deceased. Taking
note of the socio economic conditions, Rs.100/- per day can be accepted as
income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. 1/3rd
towards the personal expenditure can be deducted. Then his contribution
can be Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. Multiplier „16‟ is
11applicable. Then, the entitlement of claimants for compensation towards loss
of future earnings comes to Rs.3,84,000/-. Claimants are entitled for
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.6,000/- towards
funeral expenditure and transportations charges. In all, the claimants are
entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
(d) Who are liable:
(xiii). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable.
VIII. Arguments in the appeal:
(A). For the appellant / Insurance Company with which the Tata Hitachi
machine was insured:
13(i). The Hitachi machine was not in movement on the road at the time of
accident. Therefore, there cannot be any liability.
(ii). The deceased is not covered under the policy.- Ex.B1. There is no
employer-employee relationship between respondent No.1 and the
deceased.
(iii). Respondent No.3 is the contractor under whom the deceased is
deemed to have been working. Therefore, there cannot be any liability on
respondent Nos.1 and 2. Deceased is an authorized passenger.
(iv). The learned MACT erred in ignoring the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2
and Exs.B1 and B2.
(v). The learned MACT erred in taking the age of the deceased instead of
the age of the mother of the deceased.
12
(vi). The learned MACT ought to have considered deduction at one-half
(½) towards personal expenses, as the deceased was unmarried, but
deducted only one-third (1/3).
(vii). Rate of interest awarded is excessive.
(B) For the claimants:
14(i). The Claimants, being third parties, are entitled for compensation
against the tortfeasor and the persons vicariously liable on behalf of the
tortfeasor, viz. the employer of the tortfeasor etc.
(ii). The Policy, Ex.B1, is a comprehensive policy and covers the risk. The
compensation awarded requires enhancement.
(iii). There are no grounds to interfere except for enhancement of the
compensation.
(C) For Respondent No.5:
15(i). There is no liability on respondent No.5 for want of insurance and also
for the reason that the negligence is on the part of the Tata Hitachi machine
operator. The Police also laid a charge sheet against the operator of the
Tata Hitachi machine.
(ii). The learned MACT discussed and answered the issue relating to
negligence comprehensively. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere on
any point.
16. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful
consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
13
IX. Points for determination:
17. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Among the driver / operator of the lorry and the operator of the
Hitachi machine, who is responsible for the accident and whose
negligence is cause for the accident? Whether the Hitachi machine
can be said to be a motor vehicle and in operation at the time of
accident? Whether the findings of the learned MACT fixing the
negligence on the part of the operator of the Hitachi machine are
proper?
2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to
what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? Whether
the liability imposed on respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the learned MACT
is proper? Whether the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by
the learned MACT under the impugned award and decree dated
03.07.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.93 of 2007 is proper or requires any
interference? If so, to which extent?
3) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
Accident and Negligence:
Statutory Guidance:
18(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.
14
(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:
19. 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..”
Analysis as to accident and negligence:
20(i). FIR-Ex.A1 is registered against the driver of the lorry bearing No.ATS
2455. As per the contents in Ex.A1-FIR, when the Hitachi machine was
carried in the lorry, there was negligence and the accident occurred. It is
also mentioned in the complainant annexed to Ex.A1 that, while the Tata
Hitachi was being carried, it fell down and a person fell under the Tata
Hitachi machine. But, when it comes to charge sheet-Ex.A2, the same was
1
2009 (13) SCC 530
15laid against one Rallapalli Narasimhulu, who was working as Supervisor of
Tata Hitachi machine working under its owner G. Sreenivasulu (respondent
No.3), who was cited as L.W.5 in the charge sheet. That the accused
Narasimhulu was sitting in the cabin.
(ii). The deceased Shaik Jeelan Basha, aged about „28‟ years, was
travelling on the machine. The Tata Hitachi machine all of a sudden started
while on the body of the lorry and fell down from the lorry on the road and
lorry also fell down due to shake on either side. The deceased was helper
sitting on the wheel chain of the Tata Hitachi, died instantaneously,
sustaining crushing injuries to his head and his left hand upto shoulder was
cut. The accident took place when the Supervisor of the Tata Hitachi
machine while he was in drowsiness. He fell on the starter button moves
towards the right side, resulting the lever brake was opened and Tata
Hitachi was self started from the body of the lorry and fell down from the
lorry on the road.
(iii). The Inquest Report and Post-mortem Reports support the death of
deceased due to accident. Material witness P.W.1 is not an eye witness to
the accident.
(iv). P.W.2 said to be a third party but his evidence is eschewed.
(v)(a). P.W.3 said to the eye witness stated that he and the deceased
boarded the Hitachi machine and that there was negligence on the part of
the driver of the lorry. The deceased was working as helper in the Hitachi
machine. But, during cross examination on behalf of respondent Nos.1
16and 3, he has stated that he was travelling in the lorry. The Supervisor,
Narasimhulu, was sitting in the Hitachi machine, who is operator of the
Hitachi machine. The deceased is helper in the Hitachi machine and was
working employed by its owner. The accident occurred due to the fault of
the Hitachi machine operator. There was no fault on the part of the driver of
the lorry.
(b). During cross examination on behalf of respondent No.4-Insurance
Company, he has stated that the Police filed a case against the Supervisor
of the Hitachi machine. He was examined by the Police and he has stated
that the accident occurred due to the fault of the Supervisor of the Hitachi
machine.
(c). During cross examination of respondent No.2 / appellant, the material
witness stated that he was sitting in the cabin of the lorry. He has not given
any complaint to the Police. He has received dumb injuries. He do not
know whether his name is mentioned in the criminal case records or whether
he is cited as witness. The Hitachi machine was being transported in the
lorry. It is only when the Hitachi machine is on the road that the Supervisor,
helper or operator will do duties for the machine. Their duties are during
loading and unloading operations. He has denied the suggestion that the
deceased was not working as a helper for the Hitachi machine.
(d). During re-examination, he has stated that, as per his chief-
examination, both the driver of the lorry and the operator of the Hitachi
machine are responsible for the accident.
17
21. The appellant-Insurance Company is disputing the negligence on the
part of the Hitachi operator with reference to Ex.A1-FIR. It is settled law and
practice that the standard of proof required in appreciating the evidence in
motor accident claim cases is one of preponderance of probabilities and not
proof beyond reasonable doubt. The tribunal shall have holistic approach as
per guidance of the Hon’ble Apex court vide Bimla Devi and others Vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation (1 supra).
22. The contents of the FIR can be relied on, but they are not conclusive
by themselves. If there is any material contra thereto, the same can be given
credence. The Police, in regular discharge of their official functions, filed
charge sheet against the operator of the Tata Hitachi machine. The
claimants examined P.W.3 who said to be an eye witness to the accident
travelled along with the Hitachi machine. His travel in lorry along with the
Hitachi machine, are out of dispute. Deceased was also travelling along
with Hitachi machine is very clear.
23. Supervisor of the Hitachi machine was also in the along with the
Hitachi machine is also clear and he is accused in the crime. Appellant
Insurance Company did not choose to summon any other witness cited in
the charge sheet Ex.A2. Evidence of R.W.1 is self serving statement of the
official of respondent No.2-Insurance Company and he is not an eye witness
to the accident.
24(i). R.W.2 is the owner of the lorry. His evidence is that he came to know
that the accident took place due to supervisor of Tata Hitachi machine and
18
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. He has also
added that the driver of the Hitachi machine was charge sheeted.
(ii). During cross examination, on behalf of the claimants, he has stated
that the Police examined him in connection with this case. It is relevant to
note that G. Sreenivasulu, R.W.2 was cited as L.W.5 by the Police.
(iii). During cross examination, he has stated that his vehicle is not insured
with respondent No.4 as on the date of accident and that he is not eye
witness to the accident. Nothing important could be elicited during the cross
examination of R.W.2 except suggesting that he has colluded with the
claimants and got the case foisted against the driver of the respondent No.1.
25. From the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and R.W.2 and in the recitals in Ex.A2
charge sheet, it can be safely inferred that the claimants are able to
discharge their burden and show their case as to negligence of the driver of
the Hitachi operator / supervisor of the Hitachi machine with at least
probability. To discharge the onus / burden shifted to the Insurance
Company, there is no convincing evidence from respondent No.2 / appellant
Insurance Company. Therefore, negligence on the part of the operator /
supervisor of the respondent No.1 can be considered as cause for the
accident and the findings of the learned MACT to that extent found fit for
confirmation. The Hitachi machine was not in movement is the argument. It
may not be movement on the road but its movement from the lorry which
was on the road and its falling on the road at relevant time being the cause
for accident and the death of the deceased are clear. The contention that
19
the Hitachi machine cannot be considered as motor vehicle at the relevant
point of time and it can be considered as only goods is liable to be rejected.
Therefore, the said contention is not accepted.
26. It is not of the case that the Hitachi machine was not in movement at
the relevant time. The exclusive negligence or the conduct of the driver of
the lorry contributing for the movement of the Hitachi machine is not shown.
There is specific intervention of the persons concerned with the Hitachi
machine which caused the movement of the Hitachi machine and also the
accident. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the operator / supervisor
of the Hitachi machine, being the root cause for the accident can be
accepted.
27. The reasoning and finding of the learned MACT are found legal and
logical. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds that the
negligence of the operator of the Hitachi machine is the cause for the
accident and point No.1 is answered accordingly, concurring with the
findings of the learned MACT.
Point No.2:
Liability:
28. Respondent No.2 / appellant is seeking excuse form the liability on the
ground that there was no negligence on the part of the operator of the
Hitachi machine. But, the findings on Point No.1 are very clear in Indicating
and fixing the negligence on the operator of the Hitachi machine. The
Hitachi machine, in fact, registered as a motor vehicle and insurance
20
premium is collected on the ground that it is motor vehicle. Even the cross-
examination done on behalf of the Insurance Company suggests the role of
the operator or the supervisor or helper of the Hitachi machine when it
moves on the road. The Hitachi machine can move when operated / driven.
There is no dispute about the same. When the Hitachi machine can move
on the road, it can even move on the lorry as well. The necessary
precautions not to move the same form the lorry could have been taken by
the operator of the Hitachi machine also viz. respondent No.1.
29. The occurrence of an accident while the motor vehicle was in use is
the standard on which the liability of either tortfeasor or its Insurance
Company commences. As rightly observed by the learned MACT, no
violations are shown. The Hitachi machine was in operation, Be it on lorry or
be it on road. The operation was from lorry to road, as per the incident. It
was an improper operation and the same is sufficient to attract the
negligence. Therefore, excuse on the part of the either respondent No.1 or
the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
30. Hence, the liability fixed on respondent No.2 need not be interfered
and this Court finds that respondent No.2 is liable.
Quantum:
Precedential guidance:
31(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
21Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.2 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 Others3 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 Others4, 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
2009 (6) SCC 121
3
2017(16) SCC 680
4
(2018) 18 SCC 130
22
Just Compensation:
32. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others5, 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.
5
(2013) 9 SCC 54
23
Analysis:
33. The deceased was aged about 20 years, as per the inquest and Post-
Mortem Report. The income of the deceased was rightly accepted at
Rs.3,000/- per month taking note of socio economic circumstances of the
year in which the accident occurred viz. 12.12.2007. However, since the
deceased was aged about 20 years, 40% percent of the income can be
added towards the future prospects. Whereby the monthly income comes to
around Rs.4,200/- instead of deducting 1/3 rd towards personal
expenditure, the deduction shall be 50%, since the deceased was
unmarried. Whereby, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to
Rs.2,100/- per month and Rs.25,200/- per annum, which can be considered
as multiplicand. For the age group of „20‟ years, multiplier applicable is 18.
On application of the same, the entitlement towards loss of dependency
comes to Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.25,200/- x18).
34. Further, the claimants are entitled for loss of consortium at
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of filial consortium.
35. 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.3,84,000/- Rs.4,53,600/-
(ii) Love and affection Rs.10,000/- -Nil-
(iii) Loss of estate -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
24
(iv) Loss of Consortium -Nil- Rs.80,000/-
@ Rs.40,000/- to
each claimant
(v) Funeral expenses Rs.6,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Including transport
charges
Total compensation awarded Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.5,63,600/-
Interest (per annum) 7.5% 6%
In view of long
lapse of time and
considering the
facts and
circumstances of
the case
36. 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.5,63,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization and the award and decree
dated 03.07.2012 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.93 of 2007
require modification accordingly.
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are
otherwise entitled:-
37. 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:
25
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others6, 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.7 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
Others8 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.”
6
(2003) 2 SCC 274
7
2020 (04) SCC 413
8
(2019) 2 SCC 192
26
Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal by the
claimants:
38(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an
appeal or cross appeal by the claimants. The legal position as to powers of
the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the
learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company
(Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of
compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the
absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division
Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company
Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others9 in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013,
while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment.
(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (9 supra)
case are in compliance with the observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court in
(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (10 supra) case, in
Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter
of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the
Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just
compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While
9
2023 SCC Online AP 1725
10
(2021) 16 SCC 467
27addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement
on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations
are made.
Point No.3:
Result and relief:
39. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However,
(i) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.93
of 2007 at Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,63,600/- 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.
(a) If the claimants furnish the bank account number within 15
days from today, the respondents shall deposit the amount
28
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.
40. 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 ✓ 29 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A No.1442 of 2013 06.08.2026 Knr
