1

Date of reserved for Judgment :17.12.2025

Date of Pronouncement :24.03.2026

Date of uploading :24.03.2026

APHC010627682013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3520]

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 866/2013

Between:

1. K.PARVATHI, W/O. LATE ANNAIAH NAIDU, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O.

CHOWDEPALLE VILLAGE, PUTHALAPAT MANDAL, CHITTOOR

DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. SMT K JYOTHI BHUVANESWARI 3 OTHERS, W/O. K.ANNAIAH NAIDU,

OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. N.KATTAKINDAPALLE VILLAGE, E.KOTHURU

POST, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2. K RAGHUNADHA NAIDU, S/O. CHINNA AKKAIAH NAIDU, OCC:

CULTIVATION R/O. N.KATTAKINDAPALL E VILLAGE, E.KOTHURU

POST, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

3. SMT M NIRMALA, W/O. CHENGALPATHI NAIDU, OWNER OF TEMPO

MINI LORRY, NO. AP 03 V 4167, R/O. SIVA JYOTHI NAGAR, D.NO. 20-

3-53E, (ERRA MITTA), TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2

4. THE NATIONAL INS URANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS

BRANCH MANAGER, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K SITA RAM

2. GUDI SRINIVASU

3. A V NARAYANA RAO

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.866 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

The 3

rd

respondent in M.V.O.P. No. 358 of 2005 on the file of the IX

Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Chittoor

(for short “the learned MACT”), filed the present appeal. Her status as wife of

one K. Annaiah Naidu (deceased) is in dispute.

2. The 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents herein are the claimants. The 3

rd

respondent

herein is the owner of the tempo mini Lorry bearing No.AP 03 V 4167 [hereinafter

referred as ‘the offending vehicle’] and the 4

th

respondent herein is the Insurance

Company with which the offending vehicle was insured.

3. Claim was made by the 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents herein for awarding a

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one K. Annaiah Naidu

[hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’] in motor vehicle accident, contending

that the 1

st

respondent is the wife, the 2

nd

respondent is the father of the

deceased, and disputing the status of appellant that she is not the wife of the

deceased.

4. Learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- in total with

interest 7.5%p.a., out of which, apportioned the amount of Rs.90,000/- each to

4

the appellant and the 1

st

respondent herein, being wives, and Rs.80,000/- to the

2

nd

respondent, father of the deceased.

5. Appeal is filed contending that the appellant alone is entitled for entire

compensation and that the quantum of compensation awarded is not just and

reasonable.

6. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred as the

claimants and the respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned

MACT.

Case of the claimants, in brief, is that:-

7. [i] On 18.8.2002 at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased left Tirupati in the

offending vehicle, for getting the load of papaya fruits from Koduru, when the

vehicle was near the hotel of Maravaripalle cross, the driver of the said lorry

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the backside of the oil

tanker bearing No.AP 03 U 1440, causing accident. In the said accident,

K.Annamaya Naidu/deceased sustained severe and multiple injuries and

succumbed to the injuries while shifting to the hospital.

[ii] A case in Crime No.100 of 2002 was registered for the offences

under Section 337-304A IPC, and charge sheet was laid against the driver of the

offending vehicle.

5

[iii] The deceased was aged about 38years; hale and healthy, working

as a Manager under 1

st

respondent, getting a salary of Rs.2000/- per month, and

batta of Rs.50/- per day. He has agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.1.80 cents

of wet land and Ac.0.60 cents of dry land, raising the crops and was earning

Rs.33,000/- by way of agricultural income per annum. He was contributing his all

income to the family and the petitioners lost all valuable support. Hence, the

claim.

[iv] The 3

rd

respondent filed Petition vide OP No.15 of 2003 for grant of

Succession Certificate, claiming that she is wife of the deceased. Hence, she is

made as a party, although she is not entitled.

[v] The 1

st

respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. 2

nd

respondent is the authorized insurer, with whom the vehicle was insured.

Therefore, the first and second respondents are liable to pay.

Case of the first respondent, owner of the offending vehicle.

8. [i] Claimants shall prove the age, occupation and income of the

deceased.

[ii] Compensation claimed is excessive.

[iii] Offending vehicle was insured with the 2

nd

respondent. In the event

of any liability, the 2

nd

respondent is accountable.

6

Case of the 2

nd

respondent/Insurance Company:-

9. [i] Claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver

of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, and income of the deceased, loss of

dependency, etc.

[ii] Further, the Insurance Policy, compliance of Policy conditions, etc.,

shall be proved.

[iii] Negligence of the driver of the Oil Tanker is the cause for the

accident, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

[iv] The deceased is a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the 2

nd

respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

Case of the 3

rd

respondent:-

10. [i] The 3

rd

respondent is the legitimate wife of the deceased.

[ii] She has filed OP No.15 of 2003 for grant of Succession Certificate

and the same is pending.

[iii] Subject matter of the Succession Certificate is in respect of the

amount lying in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS), Nampalli.

[iv] The 1

st

and 2

nd

petitioners have colluded and filed the present case.

The 3

rd

respondent alone is entitled to the compensation. The 1

st

petitioner was

7

planted by the 2

nd

petitioner to knock away the compensation amount; the 3

rd

respondent and the 2

nd

petitioner are the only legal heirs under law. There were

misunderstandings between the 3

rd

respondent and her husband. However, they

have been settled.

11. Considering the pleadings, learned MACT settled issues touching the

points - 1) Accident and negligence 2) Entitlement of 1

st

petitioner and the 3

rd

respondent for compensation and entitlement of the 2

nd

petitioner as well as the

liability of the respondents.

Findings of the learned MACT:-

12. [i] Admittedly, the 2

nd

petitioner is the father of the deceased.

[ii] Relationship of the 1

st

petitioner and the 3

rd

respondent with the

deceased is in dispute.

[iii] Ex.B3 is disclosing the marriage of the 1

st

petitioner with the

deceased.

[Iv] Ex.B4 is disclosing the marriage of the 3

rd

respondent with the

deceased and also the 3

rd

respondent and the deceased living in a house prior to

3.9.1981 whereas the marriage of the 1

st

petitioner with the deceased taken

place on 19.06.1995.

8

[v] As against the Succession Certificate granted to the 3

rd

respondent,

appeal is pending vide AS No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District

Judge, Chittoor.

[vi] The evidence is indicating that the deceased married 3

rd

respondent,

lived with her for some time, later married the 1

st

petitioner and lived with her until

his death.

[vii] Inquest report indicating participation of both wives. Therefore, it

can be said that the deceased died in an accident, leaving behind him, the 1

st

petitioner as his second wife and the 3

rd

respondent as his first wife and 2

nd

petitioner is his father. All the three can be considered as legal representatives

of the deceased.

[viii] The income of the deceased can be accepted @Rs.24,000/- per

annum. ‘15’ multiplier is applicable.

[ix] Upon deducting 1/3

rd

towards personal expenditure, the entitlement

for claimants comes to Rs.2,40,000/-, and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral

expenditure and Rs.5,000/- each to the 1

st

petitioner and the 3

rd

respondent

towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. In all claimants

are a compensation of Rs.2,60,000/-, with apportionment @Rs.90,000/- each to

the 1

st

petitioner and the 3

rd

respondent and Rs.80,000/- for the 2

nd

petitioner/father of the deceased.

9

Arguments in the appeal:

For the appellant/3

rd

respondent:-

13. [i] The appellant/3

rd

respondent has obtained a Succession Certificate.

[ii] According to the observations of the learned MACT, since she is the

wife of the deceased, total compensation ought to have been awarded to her.

[iii] Taking income @Rs.24,000/- per annum is not correct.

[iv] There is no rationality in quantification and apportionment of

compensation. Claimants are entitled for more compensation.

For the 2

nd

respondent- Insurance Company :-

14. [i] Compensation awarded is excessive.

[ii] The deceased is a gratuitous passenger.

[iii] Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation for the

claimants.

[iv] The appellant is not entitled for any compensation since she has

been living separately and the propriety of Succession Certificate obtained by her

is questioned and the subject matter is subjudise before the appellate court. The

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10

Scope of the appeal:-

15. [i] There is no appeal by the Insurance Company, therefore, the issue

relating to the liability of the Insurance Company is out of the dispute.

[ii] There is no appeal by the claimants. Therefore, the entitlement of

the 3

rd

respondent for the compensation is out of dispute.

[iii] The appeal is filed by the 3

rd

respondent, therefore, exclusive

entitlement of the 3

rd

respondent for the compensation and the quantification of

compensation done by the learned MACT alone are the subject matters of the

present appeal.

16. The points that arose for determination in this appeal are –

1) Whether the 3

rd

respondent/appellant alone is entitled for the

compensation and the 1

st

petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.358 of 2005 before

the learned MACT is not entitled for any compensation?

2) Whether the compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- awarded by the land MACT

in M.V.O.P.No.358 of 2005 under the impugned Award and Decree

dated 21.12.2012 is just, adequate and reasonable? Or require any

enhancement?

3) What is the result of the appeal?

11

Point No.1:-

17. The 3

rd

respondent as RW1 relied on the Succession Certificate granted in

her favor on 09.08.2010. Subject matter in that case is amount lying in a PACS

Nampally. She has applied for Succession Certificate. During her cross-

examination, it is elicited that, as per Ex.B3/ the 1

st

petitioner is the wife of the

deceased, and their marriage was performed on 19.06.1995. She did not file any

record to show that she was residing with the deceased at Kattakindapalli

Village. The decree of Succession Certificate is challenged in the appeal Vide

A.S.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Chittoor and the said

appeal is pending.

18. The 1

st

petitioner was examined as P.W.1, and her evidence as to the

relationship of the 3

rd

respondent with the deceased is concerned, she is claiming

that 3

rd

respondent (appellant) is not the wife of the deceased and the

Succession Certificate was obtained with false allegations. During the cross-

examination done for the 3

rd

respondent/appellant, PW.1 stated that her marriage

with the deceased took place on 19.06.1995 in a in a temple Vinayakaswamy

temple of Somala village. She further stated that she do not know that by the

date of her marriage whether her husband/ deceased married to 3

rd

respondent

and do not know about the 3

rd

respondent filing SOP No. 15 of 2002. She further

stated that she stayed at Kuwait for a period of one year, after the death of her

husband.

12

19. The 2

nd

petitioner was examined as PW2 he stated that the 3

rd

respondent

is not the wife of his son/deceased and she never stayed with the deceased.

During his cross-examination done for the 3

rd

respondent, he has stated that

photographs shown to him is that of his son, late K. Annaiah Naidu’s. Said

photograph is marked as Ex.B1. He further stated that in Ex.B1, the other female

person is standing before the court (3

rd

respondent) and he did not know whether

Ex.B1 was taken when the marriage of the deceased and the 3

rd

respondent is

performed. He do not know whether his son married the 3

rd

respondent on

03.09.1981 and he cannot say whether 3

rd

respondent is his daughter-in-law.

20. Further, the evidence of other witness, RW2 would show that there was

marriage between the 3

rd

respondent and the deceased. Nothing important could

be elicited from RW2. RW3 also stated about the marriage between the

deceased and the 3

rd

respondent, except suggesting that the deceased married

1

st

petitioner nothing is elicited from RW3.

21. RW4 is sister of the 3

rd

respondent stated about the marriage between the

deceased and the 3

rd

respondent.

22. Oral and documentary evidence placed by the parties is indicating the

relationship of the deceased with the 3

rd

respondent/appellant. Inquest report is

indicating the presence of both, the 1

st

petitioner and the third respondent as

blood relatives at serial numbers 2 and 3 and they were shown as first and

second wives in the inquest report. Therefore, the entitlement of both the 1

st

13

petitioner and the 3

rd

respondent for compensation need not be doubted.

However, the findings herein shall be confined only to the present claim petition.

The respective contentions of the parties regarding their legal status as the wife

of the deceased, as well as the validity of the marriage between the deceased

and either the 1

st

petitioner or the 3

rd

respondent, shall remain subject matter for

adjudication in any pending litigations between the parties. The scope of the

inquiry in this claim petition is limited solely to the determination of entitlement to

compensation on the ground of dependency. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that the conclusions drawn herein are limited to entitlement of both the 1

st

petitioner and the 3

rd

respondent for compensation.

23. In a similar situation, where the claim of the second wife was disputed

considering aspect that the dependency is the criteria for awarding the

compensation in a claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the

Honourable High Court of Karnataka, in a case between Smt.Lalita Vs. MFA

no.24165 of 2012 (MV) and Bach considered the entitlement of the second wife

on the ground of dependency, referring to the judgments of the Honourable Apex

Court vide Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

1

. Further, the High

Court of Madras in C.M.A.(MD) 681 of 2019, observed that the though second

wife cannot be considered as a legal representative, certainly she is a dependent

while referring to other judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, Honourable

1

AIR 200 SC 735

14

High Court of Karnataka and other High Courts interpreting the expression ‘legal

representative’, and held that the second wife is also entitled for compensation.

24. In the light of the evidence and in view of the observations made in the

above cited authorities, this Court finds that the first petitioner is also entitled for

compensation and findings of the learned MACT as to her entitlement does not

warrant any interference. Therefore, this Court finds that 1st and 2

nd

petitioners

as well as the 3

rd

respondent are entitled for the compensation. Point No.1 is

answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

25. Learned MACT has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/-

per annum. To show the income of the deceased, there is no documentary

evidence. Further, it is claimed that the deceased was having landed property

and also he was engaged in agricultural operations also.

26. Upon considering socio-economic circumstances of the year 2002, when

the accident took place, this Court finds that the income taken by the learned

MACT @Rs.24,000/- per annum is reasonable. But upon considering the age of

the deceased, this Court finds that there should have been at least 30% addition

to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, whereby the income

15

comes to Rs.31,200/- per annum. 1/3

rd

is deducted towards personal expenditure

contribution of income of the deceased to the family comes Rs.20,800/- per

annum. Upon application of multiplier ‘15’, the entitlement of compensation

comes to Rs.3,12,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. Both the wives

are entitled together Rs.40,000/- @Rs.20,000/- each towards loss of consortium

and all the claimants together are entitled Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses,

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

27. In view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the

claimants and the 3

rd

respondent for reasonable compensation in comparison to

the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows:

Head Compensation awarded

by the learned MACT

Fixed by this Court

(i) Loss of dependency Rs. 2,40,000/- Rs. 3,12,000/-

(ii) Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-

(iii) Loss of Consortium Rs.10,000/-

[@Rs.5000/- each to claimant

No.1 and R3]

Rs.80,000/-

[@ Rs.40,000/- to the 2

nd

claimant and @Rs.20,000/- each

to 1

st-

claimant and the 3

rd

respondent]

(iv) Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-

Total compensation

awarded

Rs.2,60,000/- Rs.4,22,000/-

Interest (per annum) 7.5%

6%

16

{{{{

Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are

otherwise entitled:-

28. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what is

claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding

that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For

the said proposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in:

(1) Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others

2

, 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.

3

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.”

2

(2003) 2 SCC 274

3

2020 (04) SCC 413

17

(3) Ramla and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

Others

4

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.”

29. For the aforestated reasons and in view of the discussion made above, the

point No.2 is answered concluding that the claimants are entitled for

compensation of Rs.4,22,000/- 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

21.12.2012 passed by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.358 of 2005 require

modification accordingly.

Point No.3:

30. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as follows:-

(i) the compensation awarded under the award and decree dated

21.12.2012 passed by the IX Additional District Judge-cum-Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Chittoor (MACT ) in M.V.O.P.No.358

4

(2019) 2 SCC 192

18

of 2005 at Rs.2,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is

modified and enhanced to Rs.4,22,000/- with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

(ii) Claimants/petitioners are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced

part of the compensation, before the learned MACT.

(iii) Apportionment:

(a) Petitioner No.1 and the 3

rd

respondent / wives of the deceased

are entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest and

costs.

(b) 2

nd

petitioner / father of the deceased are entitled for Rs.1,22,000/-

each with proportionate interest.

(iv) Respondents 1 and 2 before the learned MACT are liable to pay the

compensation. However, Respondent No.2 is liable in view of the

Insurance Policy.

(v) Time for payment /deposit of balance amount is two (2) months.

(a) If the petitioners/claimants furnish the bank account number within

15 days from today, the 2

nd

respondent shall deposit the amount

directly into the bank account of the claimants and file the

necessary proof before the learned MACT.

(b) If the petitioners fail to comply with clause (v)(a) above, the 2

nd

respondent shall deposit the amount before the learned MACT and

19

the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at once on

deposit.

(vi) There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeal.

(vii) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal

shall stand closed.

____________________________

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

Date: 24 .03.2026

Pnr

20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.866 of 2013

24.03.2026

Pnr