1 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS’ TRIBUNAL CUM-
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC): PEDDAPURAM
Present:- Smt.G. Chandramouleswari Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims’ Tribunal cum VII Addl. District Judge, Peddapuram
Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026
M.V.O.P.NO.56/2023
Between :-
1. Nallakasula Manga, W/o Venkataramana, A/29 years, R/o 2-12, Vasantha Colony, Ayyavaram, Dubacherla Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. Nallakasula Lakshmi Durga, D/o Venkataramana, A/9 years, R/o 2-12, Vasantha Colony, Ayyavaram, Dubacherla Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. Nallakasula Venkatanaga Surya Sivamani Prakash, S/o Venkataramana, A/5 years, R/o 2-12, Vasantha Colony, Ayyavaram, Dubacherla Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. (2, 3 petitioners being minors rep, by Mother guardian 1st petitioner)
4. Nallakasula Bharathi, W/o Durgarao, A/54 years, D.No.9-96, Nallajerla, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
5. Nallakasula Durgarao, S/o Gangaraju, A/60 years, D.No.9-96,
Nallajerla, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ... Petitioners
And
1. Vadlani Veeranja Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Hanumaiah, A/40 years, D.No.1-15, Chennuru Road, Vadiamannaru Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State.
2. Vadlani Lakshmana Swami, S/o Hanumaiah, D.No.1-47, Near Mahalakshmi Manu, Vadiamannaru Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State.
3. Chola MS General Insurance Company Ltd Rep by its Divisional Manager, D.No.40-1-48/1, 2nd floor, Behind
Kotak Mahindra Bank, MG Road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondents
This petition came before me on 15.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri.M.Rambabu, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and of Sri.M.Visweswara Rao, Advocate for respondent No. 3 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till today, the Court delivered the following :-
::O R D E R::
1.This claim petition is filed by petitioners against respondents under Section 166 of MV Act, r/w Rule 455 of AP MV Rules, pray to pass an award in favour of petitioners and against respondents jointly and severally with subsequent interest rate of 18% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and for the cost of the petition.
2 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:
First petitioner is a wife, second petitioner is minor daughter, third petitioner is minor son, fourth petitioner is mother and 5th petitioner is father of deceased Nallakasula
Venkataramana @ Venkatrao @ Kondababu. The petitioners are dependents on the earnings of deceased. By the date of the accident deceased was aged about 31 years and is working as a driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Deceased used to contribute his income to his family and he is hale and healthy at the time of the accident.
On 15.11.2022 night at about 09.00 p.m. Nallakasula Venkataramana @ Venkatrao @
Kondababu who is husband of first petitioner along withDubakula Prasad Garapathi
Mahesh Babu, Penumaka Mangamma, Chidipi Nagendra Bose, Pogula Manikanta, Purna
Nagaraju, Devadasu Asirvadam, Chintakinda Mahesh, Aarathi @ Ganipaka Ramesh,
Gollapalli Vishnu @ Bhimudu, Mohs Devi Durga Prasad were proceeding to Anakapalli to
Narayanapuram Village on Tata Magic Van bearing number AP 02 TV 0935 on the way when they reached out outskirts of Mallepalli Village, Gandapalli Mandal at about 12.10 a.m in front of the van, one lorry bearing number. AP 16 TB 1557 proceeds in a rash and negligent manner with high speed applied sudden brakes, as a result, Tata magic van dashed against the lorry, as a result, Dhobakula Prasad sustained multiple injuries all over his body and died on the spot, remaining persons are G. Mahesh Babu, P. Mangamma,
Van driver/Nallakasula Venkataramana @ Venkatrao @ Kondababu, arathi @ G. Ramesh sustained grevious injuries and remaining persons in the van sustained a bleeding injuries, soon they were shifted to Government Hospital Rajamahendravaram for treatment. On 16.11.2022 at about 02.00 a.m. doctor declared G. Mahesh Babu,
Nallakasula Venkataramana @ Venkatrao @ Kondababu were brought dead. P.
Mangamma died at 04.16 a.m. While undergoing treatment arathi @ G. Ramesh died on the same day evening.
The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing numbe AP 16 TB 1557. SHO Gandapalli PS registered a case in Crime No. 251 of 2022 under Section 301A, 338, 337 IPC. Due to sudden and unexpected demise of the deceased in unfortunate accident, petitioners became helpless, gloomy and lost their family support and also lost their love and affection and their mental anguish cannot be assessed in terms of money. However, petitioners are restricted their claim to a tune of
Rs.15,00,000/-. Therefore, respondents 1 to 5 are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the petition till the date of realization and for the cost of the petition.
3.On the other hand, first and second respondents having engaged an advocate on their behalf, failed to file any counter in spite of conditional order, at last their counter is treated as nill.
3 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
4.3rd respondent filed his written statement by denying the material allegation in the petition and further stated that first respondent is driver of lorry bearing number AP 16
TB 1557 and driver of Tata Magic van bearing number AP 02 TV 0935 said to have been driven the vehicles at the time of alleged accident were not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive said vehicles respectively at the time of the accident and further they were not qualified for holding or obtaining such a driving licence and further they have not satisfied requirements under Section 3 of MV Act as well as Rule 3 of Central
Motor Vehicle Rules. Thus, the drivers of both the vehicles contravened the proviso and rules framed under the Act, thereby they have knowingly and willfully committed the breach of terms and conditions of the policy by driving the said vehicles without having a valid driving licence, and Respondents no. 2 who is owner of the said vehicles, had knowingly and willfully allowed the drivers of said two vehicles to drive the vehicles in question without valid license and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
Therefore, respondents 3 who is the insurance company of said vehicle are not liable to indemnify the liability of respondent no. 2 and petition is dismissed against 3rd respondent.
The statutory demand under Section 134(c) of MV Act and Section 158(6) of
MV Act are not complied. The respondents/insurance companies seek the protection under Section 147 and 149 of MV Act. The offending vehicles i.e., lorry bearing number
AP 16 TB 1557 and Tata. Van bearing number AP 02 TV 0935 had no valid permit, valid registration and no fitness and vehicles were not road worthy to ply on the roads as on the date of the accident, as such they ply on the roads by violating the MV Act and rules thereon. The interest claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, the same is contrary to Section 3 of Interest Act. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest on non-peculiar damages, as per the judgment reported in 1995 ACJ 1 Page 366 and 2001
Part 1 AJR 253 (SC).
The petitioners have to prove that they are the only legal heirs of the estate of the deceased Nallakasula Venkata Ramana, and that they are the dependents on the earnings of the deceased and also has to prove the age of the deceased i.e., he is 31 years old at the time of the accident and he was a driver earning Rs.15,000/- per month and also has to establish the manner and negligence of the driver of the vehicles. The alleged accident occurred due to overcrowd of van bearing number AP 02 TV 0935 against the permit, as such the respondents 3 are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and respondents 3 is entitled to take all the defenses available to the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. The petition is barred by limitation and that owner and isurer of the Van bearing No.AP 02 TV 0935 on which the deceased was going on are proper and necessary partiest to the present petition is not maintainable due to non-joining of proper and necessary parties. Under above circumstances, respondent no.
3 prays to dismiss the petition against him with costs.
4 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the alleged accident occurred on 15.11.2022 at
about 12.10 am when reached outskirts of Mallepalli Village,
Gandepalli Mandal was due to rash or negligent act of driver of
the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 1557?
2. Whether accident results death to the deceased by name
Nallakasula Venkataramana @ Venkatrao @ Kondababu ?
3. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation. If so, for what amount and from which of the respondent?
4. To what relief?
6.The 1st issue is recasted as follows for better appreciation and brevity and clarity of Judgment:
Whether the alleged accident occurred on 15.11.2022 at about
12.00 p.m at outskirts of Mallepalli Village, Gandepalli Mandal
was due to rash or negligent act of Driver of the lorry bearing
number AP 16 TB 1557 or Tata Magic Van bearing number AP 02
TV 0935 or negligence of both the drivers of said vehicles?
7.PW1 to PW3 are examined Exhibit P1 to P5 are marked on behalf of petitioners. RW 1 to 5 are examined and Exhibit R1 to R5 are marked on behalf of respondents No. 3. Exhibit X1 to Exhibit X3 (through RW2), Ex.X4 and X5 (through
RW3), Ex.X6 (through RW4) are also marked on behalf of 3rd respondent.
Issue No.1 to 3:
1. Whether the alleged accident occurred on 15.11.2022 at about 12.00
p.m at outskirts of Mallepalli Village, Gandepalli Mandal was due to
rash or negligent act of Driver of the lorry bearing number AP 16 TB
1557 or Tata Magic Van bearing number AP 02 TV 0935 or negligence
of both the drivers of said vehicles?
2. Whether accident results death to the deceased by name Nallakasula Venkata Ramana @ Venkatrao @ Kondababu?
3. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation. If so, for what amount and from which of the respondent?
8.To substantiate the case of petitioners, First petitioner is examined as PW1, her specific evidence is that she is wife of deceased Nallakasula Venkataramana @
Venkatrao @ Kondababu and other petitioners are the children and parents of deceased.
She filed her chief affidavit by reiterating her pleadings. Her specific evidence is that on 15.11.2022 midnight her husband along with others were proceeding towards Anakapalli on a Tata Magic Van bearing number AP 02 TV 0935, when they reached to outskirts of
Mallepalli Village Gandapalli mandal at about 12.10 a.m., in front of the van, the driver of the lorry bearing number AP 16 TB 1557 driving his lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, applied sudden brakes, as a result Tata Magic Van dashed against the lorry, in that accident, Dhobakula Prasad sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot.
and remaining travelers in the van received injuries, and other travelers like G.Mahesh 5 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
Babu, Van driver/Nallakasula Venkataramana @ Venkatrao @ Kondababu,
P.Mangamma, Arthi @ Ramesh were died. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving lorry. First respondent is the driver of the lorry. Second respondent is the owner of said lorry. 3rd respondent is the insurer of the lorry. Due to sudden demise of husband of first petitioner, petitioners became helpless, they lost their family support, love and affection. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to petitioners.
9.To corroborate the evidence of PW1, petitioners got examined eye witness to the accident as a PW2 and also examined the co-passenger in the Tata Magic
Van as PW3. Naturally PW2 and PW3 are examined on behalf of the petitioners, they support the version of the petitioners and they deposed on the same lines of evidence of
PW1. To establish the case of the petitioners, they also relied on four documents as
Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P5. Exhibit P1 is attested copy of the FIR in Crime No. 251 and 222 of Gandepalli PS. Exhibit P2 is attested copy of the post-mortem report of Nallakasula
Venkata ramana @ Venkatarao @ Kondababu. Exhibit P3 is attested copy of M.VI report in Crime No. 251 and 22 of Gandapalli PS. Exhibit P4 is attested copy of final report in
Crime No. 251/22 under Section 304, 338, 337 IPC of Gandepalli P.S, Ex.P5 is Attested copy of driving license bearing no.AP 437/0002215/2022 of Nallakasula Venkata
Ramana. On perusal of recitals of Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P5 it is clear that after the accident, the case was registered against the van driver of the Tata Magic Van and as the driver of the Tata Magic Van as died due to injuries received in the accident, the case against the driver is abated and final report was filed against him and he has learners licence LLR as on the date of accident. The recitals of Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P5 shows that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing
No.AP 16 TB 1557, but a case is registered against deceased/driver of Tata Magic Van and while he was undergoing treatment as he has died, the final report is filed against him.
11.The learned counsel for 3rd respondent contended that the accident was took place due to rash and negligence of a driver of Tata Magic Van by name Nallakasula
Venkata Ramana, at the time of the accident, he was not possessing valid permit and the vehicle was not fit for ply on the road and he was not having any valid license, therefore the insurance companies Tata Magic Van bearing number AP 02 TV 0935 is not liable to pay compensation to petitioners even under the head of pay and recovery. To prove the above contention they relied on oral evidence of PW1, recitals of Exhibit. P1,
Ex.P4/Exhibit R3 and also relied on cross examination of PW1 and oral evidence of RW1 to RW5 and recitals of Ex.R1 to R5 and X1 to X6. It is true PW1 in his cross examination he deposed that a final report under Exhibit A4 is filed against Nallakasula Venkata 6 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
Ramana who is driver of Tata magic Van as he was died. It is further clear that as per recitals of Exhibit P1/FIR. Ex.R3/Ex.P4/attested copy of final report that the accident was took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the Tata Magic Van and case against him is abated as he is died. RW4 and RW5 who are police officials also deposed that the case is registered against the driver of Tata Magic Van who is husband of 1st petitioner and its further clear the driver of Tata Magic Van is not having fitness to the vehilce.
12.He relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chamundeswari and others reported in 2021 ACJ 2558 where in it is held that the evidence of the eye witness prevailed and in absence of any rebuttal evidence, no weightage can be given to the contents of FIR. Mataji Bewa Vs Hemanta Kumar Jena reported in 1994 ACJ 1303 where in it is held that when the positive evidence laid before the tribunal has to be accepted as evidence and the contents of the charge sheet cannot be treated as evidence in a claim proceedings. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kamili reported in 2010
ACJ 1340 where in it is held that FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence and cannot be placed on pedestal higher than the statement made before court.
13.On consideration of total evidence available on record from plaintiff's side and as well as the respondent's side, it is clear that the accident was took place due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of the offending vehicles, i.e., Tata magic van and a lorry. Therefore, it is clear that the accident was held due to negligence of first respondent who is the driver of the lorry as well as Nallakasula Venkata Ramana who is the driver of Tata Magic Van. Hence R1/driver of lorry, R2/owner of the lorry and owner of the tata magic van are held liable. It has to be decided whether insurance companies i.e.
R3 and and Insurance company of Tata Magic Van have liability to indemnify the owners of offending vehicles i.e., R2 and owner of Tata Magic Van.
14.In view of the discussions, the petitioners clearly established that the accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of the both the offending vehicles which results, death of deceased Nallakasula Venkata Ramana. Accordingly Issue No. 1 & 2 are answered.
15.The learned counsel for 3rd respondent contented that Nallakasula Venkata
Ramana who is driver of the Tata magic van drove his vehicle negligently, due to his negligence, accident is occurred and he had no valid driving licence at the time of accident, he has only learners license, thus there is a breach in terms and conditions of insurance policy, and petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. To prove the same, respondent no.3 relied on evidence of RW3 who is staff of RTO office
Tadepalliguden and also relied on Exhibit X4/learners licence of who is deceased and 7 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
driver of Tata Magic Van and Exhibit X5/ A letter issued by Regional Transport Unit Office where in it is stated that Nallakasula Venkata Ramana who is driver of Tata Magic Van is not have a permanent driving licence. RW3 in his evidence categorically stated that, the learner's licence holder is permitted to drive the vehicle is accompanied by transport license holder or instructor in the vehicle and he do not know whether the permanent license holder is accompanied with N.Venkata Ramana as on the date of the accident in the offending vehicle. No positive evidence is placed by the 3rd to establish that the driver of the Tata Magic Van is accompanied by any instructor or any other person who is having any license at the time of driving the vehicle as he was having a LLR at the time of accident. In absence of any evidence the above contention of 3rd respondent is not tenable.
16.The learned counsel for 3rd respondent contended that there are permit violations and there is no valid permit to the Tata Magic Van to ply the vehicle on the road at the relevant time of the accident, on knowing the same, owner of tata magic van allowed the Tata Magic van to ply on the road without permit. Therefore respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation to petitioners even under the head of pay and recovery. To prove the same respondent no. 3 examined RW2 who is a RTA staff and also relied on Exhibit X1/B-registrar extract where in it is mentioned that the capacity of
Tata magic van is only 7 persons and also relied on Exhibit X2/permit details of the vehicle and Exhibit X3/ fitness details of the vehicle. On perusal of oral evidence of PW2 it is clear that there is no permit to travel the Tata Magic van to fly on the roads at the relevant time of the accident. As per oral evidence of PW1 to 3, morethan 7 persons travelled in the Tata Magic Van at the relevant time of accident. So, it is established that there is no valid permit to Tata Magic Van at the relevant time of accident and there is violation.
17.The learned defence counsel further contended that as per the record placed by the respondents it is clear that driver of the Tata Magic Van by name Nallakasula
Venkata Ramana has not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and who is having LLR, and the Tata Magic van is not fit for ply on the roads and there is no valid permit to the tata Magic van. For that they relied on oral evidence of RW1 to 3 and recitals of Ex.R4 and R5, Ex.1 to X5. Thus 3rd respondent categorically established that river of the Tata Magic Van by name Nallakasula Venkata Ramana has not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and who is having LLR, and the Tata Magic van is not fit for ply on the roads and there is no valid permit to the tata Magic van. So 3rd respondent categorically established that there are violations in the insuracne policy of
Tata magic Van and also breach of MV rules and MV Act. But as discussed supra, it was established that the accident was took place due to contributory negligence of driver of 8 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
Tata Magic Van bearing No.AP 02 TV 0935 and driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TB 1557.
18.The learned defence counsel further contended that the insurer of Tata Magic van is not having any liability to pay the compensation to petitioners even under the head of pay and recovery as per the New Amendment Act and he relied on G.Nagarthan and others VS G.Manjunatha and another reported in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
SLP 22411/2025. Contra to the above contention of respondents, the counsel for
petitioners contended that the insurance company is held liable to pay compensation under the head of the pay and recovery even as per the amendment Act and he relied on
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Arti Devi and others reported in 2025
ACJ 265 where in it is held that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act must be interpreted liberally in favour of third party victims, the insurer cannot award a liability on mere technical breaches of policy conditions. The insurance company must first pay compensation to the claimant by third party, then it can recover the amount from the owner by registered if there is a breach of policy. Therefore it specifically held in Apex
Court's decision that the principle of pay and recovery is still applicable even after
Amendment Act 2019 and the principle of pay and recovery is applied even there is no valid driving licence and when there is a breach of policy conditions. So even after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, the pay and recovery principles continues, hence the insurer must satisfy third party claims and may thereafter recover the same from the insured in case of policy breach. It is also held in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs
Sarang Singh reported in (2004) Part III SCC 297 where in it is held that breach of policy conditions, including absence of valid driving licence, does not absorb the insurer unless willful breach by the insured is proved, even then the insurer is liable to satisfy the award and recover the same from the insured. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu Vs
Vinod Kumar Lamba reported in (2018) 3 SCC 2008 where in it is held that the owner fails to prove that the driver possessed a valid driving licence, the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the third party and recover the same from the insured. It is not the case of the third respondent that First respondent who is the driver of the lorry is not having any driving licence at the relevant time of the accident and even as per the evidence let in by the respondent there is LLR to driver of the Tata magic van at the relevant time of the accident, in such circumstances the contention of third and fifth respondent that the drivers of offending vehicles are not having valid driving licence at the relevant time of the accident is not tenable. Moreover even there is any violation or breach in terms of the policy, the insurance company held liable to pay compensation at first instance and recover the same from owners of the offending vehicles. So the above decisions relied by the petitioners is squarely applicable to the present set of facts. Therefore the insurance company held liable to pay compensation at first instance that recovered the amount from 9 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
the insured.
19.In view of the ratio laid down in above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 3rd respondent and Insurance company of Tata Magic Van held liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners at first instance and they may recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicles. But as per the record the driver of Tata magic Van was died, but petitioners failed to add Insurance company and onwer of Tata Magic Van.
Therefore the owners and drivers of both the vehicles are held liable, but petitioners failed to show the owner and insurance company of Tata Magic Van and it is established that driver of the Tata Magic Van is died soon after the accident, as petitioners failed to add owner and insurance company of Tata magic Van, they are not entitled to get full compensation from the respondents shown in the petition. Accordingly Issue No.3 is answered. In view of discussion and finding in Issue No.1 to 3, petitioners are entitled only half of the compensation amount from 1 to 3 respondents as per following calculation.
Annual Income:
20. As per version of petitioners, the deceased Nallakasula Venkataramana @
Venkatrao @ Kondababu was a driver and earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month, but to prove the same they neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any supportive document, so, notional income of deceased to be considered. As per record and as per
Ex.P2/postmortem certificate the age of the deceased is 31 years and the accident was occurred on 15.11.2022, therefore the notional income of deceased is considered as
Rs.9,000/- per month. As the notional income of deceased per month is Rs.9,000/-, the annual income of deceased is considered as Rs.9,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,08,000/-.
Loss of Dependency:
21.As per decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in Sarala Varma Vs
Delhi Transport Corporation and another since the age of deceased established as 31 years as on the date of accident, the multiplier is 16 shall be taken into consideration. As deceased is 31 years age, the multiplier applied is 16, then it comes to Rs.1,08,000 X 16 = Rs.17,28,000/-. Record shows that there are 5 dependents who are wife, children and parents of deceased. Therefore 1/4th have to be deducted from the above amount towards the personal and living expenditure of deceased i.e., from 17,28,000/4 = 4,32,000/-. So, loss of dependency is Rs.17,28,000–4,32,000= Rs.12,96,000/-.
Future prospects:
22.The Apex Court in United India Insurance company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others in Civil Appeal Number 2705 of 2020 rendered on 10 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
03.06.2020 deviating the view taken in the case of Sarala Verma held as follows:
“While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition 0f 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component”.
The age of deceased is established as 31 years as on the date of accident and he was self employee, therefore the future prospects of deceased to be considered as 40%. So the future prospects of deceased is Rs.12,96,000 X 40% = 5,18,400/-. Accordingly, the loss of annual income of deceased can be arrived at 12,96,000+5,18,400 = Rs.18,14,400/-.
Conventional Heads: 23. The Apex Court inNational Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others held that “reasonable figures under the conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. In Pranay Sethi’s case, the Apex Court also held that the said sum should be enhanced @ 10% every three years”.
The Judgment in Pranay Sethi was rendered in 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for 10% enhancement for every 3 years from 2017 on wards.
It was held in Kanti devi and others Vs.New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and others by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that “Parental consortium is available to all the children irrespective of the fact that whether they were dependent on the deceased or not. The Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others in CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705 OF 2020 rendered on 30 th June, 2020, held that each child is entitled for loss of consortium and the parents of the deceased are entitled for filal consortium.
The claimants/petitioners being wife, children and parents of deceased who lost their husband, father and son respectively lost deceased in road accident, held on 15.11.2022 as discussed supra. So, they are entitled for loss of consortium.
The amount for which the petitioners are entitled to as follows:
1.Loss of DependencyRs.18,14,400/-
2.Loss of EstateRs.16,500/-
3.Loss of consortiumRs.44,000/-
4.Funeral expensesRs.16,500/-
5.TransportRs.10,000/-
TotalRs.19,01,400/- 11 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
Thus, the total compensation for which the claim petitioners are entitled
Rs.19,01,400/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred Only) with interest. Though the claim petitioners claimed Rs.15,00,000/- as a compensation, they are entitled for Rs.19,01,400/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred
Only), as per the calculations made above. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa vs
Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was observed that under MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The tribunal/Court ought to award “Just compensation’’ which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. Although petitioners claimed Rs.15,00,000/- but as per calculation made above, they entitled for Rs.19,01,400/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs One
Thousand Four Hundred Only). Therefore petitioners who are legal representatives of deceased are entitled for compensation an amount of Rs.19,01,400/-.
24.It is well settled law that the MVOP is generally maintainable even in all tort fesors are not impleded. It is not automatically bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. But the award will be limited and the tribunal may apportion negligence and fasten liability only on the parties before it. Where in accident happened due to negligence of two vehicles, drivers/owners are became tortfeasors. In such circumstances, the claimant can sue or sue all sue anyone or some of them. Non including of other vehicle’s/drivers/insurer does not by itself defeat the claim. In such a case, the Tribunal assess negligence on evidence, if it finds negligence on both the vehicles, it may apportion and fix a liability on the respondents before it, to the extent of their share. So if only one vehicles owner or driver or insurer is on record, the award can be passed against them for their proportionate liability. So, if only one set of respondents is impleaded, the claimant may not get full recovery. If apportionment is made and the other tortfeasor is not on record. It is settled law in Khenyei vs New India assurance
Co. Ltd. reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 where in it is held that non-implead of other vehicle or insurer is not fatal. Tribural can apportion interse negligence, but the claimant can recover from impleaded party. It is held in Karnataka SRTC Vs Krishnan reported in (1981) 1 SCC 80 where in it is held that in accidents involving multiple vehicles, the tribunal can assess respective negligence and apportion liability.
12 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
25.In view of foregoing discussion, it is established that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of driving of drivers of both the offending vehicles,.
Therefore respondent no.1 being driver, 2nd respondent being owner of lorry bearing No.
AP 16 TB 1557 and also owner of Tata Magic Van (who not added as party to the proceedings) are held liable to pay compensation. But as per the record the driver of Tata magic Van was died, but petitioners failed to add Insurance company and owner of Tata
Magic Van. Therefore the owners of both vehicles and drivers of the lorry are held liable.
As petitioners failed to show the owner and insurance company of Tata Magic Van and it is established that driver of the Tata Magic Van is died soon after the accident, as petitioners failed to add owner and insurance company of Tata magic Van, petitioners are not entitled to get full compensation from the respondents shown in the petition and they entitled only apportionment of share of lorry owner, driver and insuer. Therefore petitioners are entitled only half of the compensation amount from 1 to 3 respondents.
Hence, the claimants/petitioners are entitled only half of the compensation amount from
Rs.19,01,400/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred Only) i.e.,
Rs.9,50,700/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred only) from respondents viz., respondents 1 to 3 who are Jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to claimants. Therefore, 3rd respondent being insurance company has to indemnify the liability of 2nd respondent who is owner of lorry. Accordingly all issues are answered.
ISSUE No.4: To what relief?
26. In the result, Petition is allowed with costs and interest awarding an amount of
Rs.9,50,700/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred only) towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within Two months from the date of order. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-.
On such deposit, out of an amount of Rs.9,50,700/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty
Thousand Seven Hundred only), 1st petitioner who is wife of deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,50,700/- with interest and she is entitled to withdraw an amount of
Rs.3,50,700/- and directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as a fixed deposit in any
Nationalized Bank for a period of 2 years. 2nd petitioner who is minor daughter of deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and 3rd petitioner who is minor son of deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and petitioners are directed to deposit the same in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority. 4th and 5th petitioners are parents of deceased are entitled for an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- each with interest and petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same.
Petitioners are directed to furnish copy of pass books and their bank details including 13 MVOP.56/2023, dt.29.04.2026
VII ADJ, PDP
IFSC code within one week from this Judgment for preparing decree.
Dictated to the Stenographer(Contract Basis), transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/- G.Chandra Mouleswari
VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
PEDDAPURAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner:
PW1 : Nallakasula Manga PW2 : Golla Daniel Sudhakar PW3 : Devadasu Asirwadham
For Respondents:
RW1: Saluru Sai Kumar RW2: Palivela Srinu RW3: K.V.V.Naga Murali RW4: U.Venkata Siva Naga Babu RW5: B.Surya Appa Rao
Documents Marked
For Petitioner
Ex.P1 : Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.251/2022 of Gandepalli PS, Ex.P2 : Attested copy of Postmortem report. Ex.P3 : Attested copy of MVI report. Ex.P4 : Attested copy of Final report. Ex.P5 : Attested copy of driving license bearing No.AP 437/0002215/2022 of Nallakasula Venkata Ramana.
For Respondent:
Ex.R1: Attested copy of policy of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TB 1557. Ex.R2 : Attested copy of Tata Van bearing No.AP 02 TV 0935 Ex.R3 : Final report Ex.R4 : permit copy Ex.R5 : B-Registrar extract copy
Ex.X1 : B.Register extract of Vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TV 0935 Ex.X2 : Permit details of Vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TV 0935 Ex.X3 : Fitness details of Vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TV 0935 Ex.X4 : LLR of Nallakasula Venkata Ramana Ex.X5 : A letter issued by Regional transport unit office Tadepalliguden. Ex.X6 L Attested copy of entire CD file.
Sd/- G.Chandra Mouleswari
VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
PEDDAPURAM