As per case facts, on April 13, 2012, four persons traveling in an auto rickshaw were fatally injured when a lorry, attempting to overtake another vehicle, collided with it. The ...
1
Date of reserved for orders : 25.06.2026
Date of pronouncement : 25.08.2026
Date of uploading : 25.08.2026
APHC010356842015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3520]
TUESDAY, THE 25
th
DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 110/2015
Between:
1. PALAPARTHI SEEKHAR BABU, KRISHNA DIST & 2 OTHERS, S/O
HANUMANTHA RAO, HINDU, AGED 30 YRS ,DEPENDANT , R/O
GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHERLA MANDAL, KRISHNA
DISTM,.(CLAIMANT).
2. PALAPARTHI VARALAKSHMI,, D/O SEKHAR BABU, HINDU, AGED
6 YRS, R/O GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHERLA MANDAL,
KRISHNA DISTM,.(CLAIMANT) (2ND & 3RD PETITIONERS
/CLAIMANTS ARE MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY THIER
FATHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. 1ST PETITIONER
/APPELLANT).
3. PALAPARTHI NOOKESWARI,, D/OSEKHAR BABU, HINDU, AGED 6
YRS , R/O GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHERLA MANDAL,
KRISHNA DISTM,.(CLAIMANT) (2ND & 3RD PETITIONERS
/CLAIMANTS ARE MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY THIER
FATHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. 1ST PETITIONER
/APPELLANT).
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. GARIMI VENKATESWARA RAO KRISHNA DIST ANR, S/O
SATYANARAYANA, HINDU--AGED 32 YRS R/O. D NO: 3- 6,
TADIGADAPA VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL"KRISHNA DIST.
2
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LID, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, CONA HEIGHT, OPPOSITE AIR, PUNNAMMATHOTA,
VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto enhance
the compensation granted in the Judgment and Decree passed in MVOP
No. 281 of 2013 dated 14.10.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal Court-cum-XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama as
prayed in OP No. 281 of 2013 with costs and pass.
IA NO: 2 OF 2014(MACMAMP 42000 OF 2014
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
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. M UMADEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. .
2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE
3. C PRAKASH REDDY
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 111/2015
Between:
1. BOKKA YAESU & 2 OTHERS, S/O RASAIAH, HINDU, AGED 50 YRS
COOLIE, R/O GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHERLA
MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST (CLAIMANT)
2. BOKKA SAMUEL,, S/O YESU, HINDU, AGED 27 YRS, R/O
GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHERLA MANDAL, KRISHNA
DIST,.(CLAIMANT)
3. BOKKA ROSAIAH, @PEDA ROSAIAH, S/O YESU, HINDU, AGED 26
YRS , R/O GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHERLA MANDAL,
KRISHNA DIST,.(CLAIMANT)
3
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. GARIMI VENKATESWARA RAO ANOTHER, S/O.
SATYANARAYANA, HINDI, AGED 32 YRS R/O D NO: 3- 6,
TADIGADAPA VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, CONA HEIGHT, OPPOSITE A1R, PUNNAMMATHOTA,
VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto enhance
the compensation granted in the Judgment and Decree passed in MVOP
282 of 2013 dt. 14.10.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidan Claims Tribunal
Court Cum XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge Nandigama as prayed
in O P 282 of 2013 with costs and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2014(MACMAMP 42005 OF 2014
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
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. RAVI KUMAR TOLETY
2. UMADEVI MANCHALA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE
2. C PRAKASH REDDY
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 112/2015
Between:
1. BOKKA ROSAIAH @ PEDA ROSAIAH, KRISHNA DIST & ANR, S/O
YESU, HINDU, AGED 26 YRS , COOLIE, S C PALLI, GANDEPALLI
VILLAGE,KANCHIKACHARLA MANDAL KRISHNA DIST
(CLAIMANT)
4
2. BOKKA ANNAMMA,, D/O BOKKA ROSAIAH@ PEDA ROSAIAH,
HINDU, AGED 3 YRS S C PALLI , GANDEPALLI VILLAGE,
KANCHIKACHARLA MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST (CLAIMANT) ( 2ND
PETITIONER /CLAIMANT IS MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY
HER FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. 1 PETITIONER
/APPELLANT)
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. GARIMI VENKATESWARA RAO KRISHNA DIST ANR, S/O
SATYANARAYANA, HINDI, AGED 32 YRS R/O D NO: 3- 6,
TADIGADAPA VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST,.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, CONA HEIGHT, OPPOSITE A1R,PUNNARNMATHOTA,
VIJAYAWADA
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto enhance
the compensation granted in the Judgment sad Decree passed in MVOP
213 of 2013 dt. 14.10.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Court Cum XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge Nandigama as prayed
is OP 213 of 2013 with costs
IA NO: 2 OF 2014(MACMAMP 42001 OF 2014
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
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. UMADEVI MANCHALA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE
2. C PRAKASH REDDY
5
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 113/2015
Between:
1. MARKAPUDI KANTARAO, KRISHNA DIST & 2 OTHERS, S/O LATE
SUNDARA RAO, HIN DU, AGE 46 YRS, COOLIE, GANDEPALLI
VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHARLA MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST
(CLAIMANT) (CLAIMANT)
2. MARKAPUDI MANIKKYALA RAO", S/O KANTA RAO, HINDU, AGE
24 YRS, COOLIE, GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHARLA
MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST (CLAIMANT)
3. MARKAPUDI SUNNY, S/O KANTA RAO, HINDU, AGE 24 YRS,
COOLIE, GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHARLA MANDAL,
KRISHNA DIST (CLAIMANT)
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. GARIMI VENKATESWARA RAO KRISHNA DIST ANR, S/O
SATYANARAYANA, HINDI, AGED 32 YRS R/O D NO: 3- 6,
TADIGADAPA VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL KRISHNA DIST
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, CONE HEIGHT, OPPOSITE AIR,PUNNAMMATHOTA,
VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto enhance
the compensation granted in the Judgment and Decree passed in MVOP
225 of 2013, dt. 14.10.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Court Cum XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge Nandigama as prayed
in 0 P 225 of 2013 with costs and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2014(MACMAMP 42003 OF 2014
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
6
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. UMADEVI MANCHALA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. 01687
2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE
The Court made the following:
7
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.110, 111, 112 and 113 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT :
I. Introductory:-
1. All these four appeals are directed against the orders and decrees
passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.281 of 2013, 282 of 2014, 213 of 2013 and 225 of
2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional
District and Sessions Judge (for short “the learned MACT”) and arising out
of the same/one road traffic accident dated 13.04.2012 with the involvement
of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TW 6568 and auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 16
TV 3184. Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation and allowing the
claim in part against the Insurance Company and the apportionment of
liability among the two vehicles involved, the respective appeals are filed by
the claimants.
2. All the four appeals are heard together. The details of the appeals are
as follows:
Sl.
No.
M.A.C.M.A.
No.
M.V.O.P.
No.
Details of claimants
/ appellants
Nature of
claim
Date of
order &
decree
Result
(M.V.O.P.)
1. 110 of 2015 281 of 2013
1.Palaparthi Seekhar
Babu
2.Palaparthi
Varalakshmi
3.Palaparthi
Nookeswari
Death
Deceased
No.1
(Palaparthi
Parvathi)
14.10.2014 Partly
allowed
2. 111 of 2015 282 of 2014 1. Bokka Yesu
2. Bokka Samuel
3.Bokka Rosaiah @
Peda Rosaiah
Death
Deceased
No.2
(Bokka
Mahalakshmi)
14.10.2014 Partly
allowed
8
3. 112 of 2015 213 of 2013 1. Bokka Rosaiah @
Peda Rosaiah
2. Bokka Annamma
Death
deceased
No.3
(Mariyamma)
14.10.2014 Partly
allowed
4. 113 of 2015 225 of 2013 1.Markapudi
Kantarao
2.Markapudi
Manikkyala Rao
3. Markapudi Sunny
Death
deceased
No.4
(Aruna Kumari
@ Chanti)
14.10.2014 Partly
allowed
II. Case of the claimants:
3(i). On 13.04.2012, when Palaparthi Parvathi, Bokka Mahalakshmi,
Mariyamma and Aruna Kumari @ Chanti (hereinafter referred to as “the
deceased persons”) were traveling in the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 16
TV 3184 along with other coolies, at about 07:15 p.m. and when the Auto
was near Ambarupet Cross Roads, a lorry bearing No.AP 16 TW 6568
(hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), coming from the opposite
direction while overtaking another vehicle, came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the auto, caused the accident. Whereby, the auto was
crushed and completely damaged and four persons travelling in the auto viz.
the deceased died on the spot.
(ii). A person by name G. Rebakar reported the matter to the Police, on
the strength of which a case in Crime No.133 of 2012 for the offences under
Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC was registered by Nandigama Police
Station.
(iii). The claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.110 of 2015 are the legal
representatives of the deceased, Palaparthi Parvati.
(iv). The claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.111 of 2015 are the legal
representatives of the deceased, Bokka Mahalakshmi.
9
(v). The claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.112 of 2015 are the legal
representatives of the deceased, Mariyamma.
(vi). The claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.113 of 2015 are the legal
representatives of the deceased, Aruna Kumari @ Chanti.
(vii). Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent
No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was
registered. Hence, both respondents are liable to pay compensation as the
accident has occurred due to the exclusive negligence of driver of the
offending vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 contested the
case.
III. Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:
5. Driver of the auto is responsible for the accident. There was
overloading and there was a wooden plank on other side of the driver of the
auto. There were a total of ‘11’ passengers in the auto at the time of
accidents. The owner and Insurance Company of the auto are also
necessary parties. The offending vehicle is falsely implicated. The driver of
the lorry was not holding a proper and effective driving licence. Therefore,
Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation and in any event, the
quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.
IV. Evidence:
6(i). Palaparthi Sekhar Babu, is one of the claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.110
of 2015 and he was examined as P.W.1 in that case.
10
(ii). Bokka Yesu, is one of the claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.111 of 2015 and
he was examined as P.W.1 in that case.
(iii). Markapudi Kanta Rao, is one of the claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.112
of 2015 and he was examined as P.W.1 in that case.
(iv). Palaparthi Sekhar Babu, is one of the claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.113
of 2015 and he was examined as P.W.1 in that case.
(v). P.Ws.2 and 3, Bokka Rajani and Markapudi Elisamma, are the same
witnesses in all the cases. They are eye witnesses to the accident.
(vi). Ex.A1 is the FIR, Ex.A4 is the M.V.I. Report and Ex.A5 is the Charge
Sheet. Exs.A1, A4 and A5 are same in all cases. Ex.A2 is the Inquest
Report and Ex.A3 is the Post-mortem Report. Exs.A2 and A3 are relating to
the respective deceased in that case.
V. Findings of the learned MACT:
7. The learned MACT quantified the compensation in respect of each
case by taking income of the deceased with reference to evidence at
Rs.3,000/- per month. However, found that there is contributory negligence
on the part of the driver of the auto and that the owner and Insurance
Company of the auto had not been added. There is equal contribution of
negligence on the part of the drivers of both the auto and the lorry and fixed
their liability at 50% each. Directed Insurance Company of lorry to pay 50%
of the compensation arrived / calculated.
11
VI. Arguments in the appeal:
For the appellant-claimants:
8(i). The learned MACT erred in apportioning the liability and directing
payment of only 50% of the compensation by the Insurance Company of the
offending vehicle.
(ii). Believing contributory negligence without there being any evidence of
driver of either the auto or the lorry is not correct.
(iii). The evidence as to contributory negligence is not properly appreciated
although the evidence of P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident, is very
clear.
(iv). When there is evidence as to income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per
day, adopting notional income is not correct.
(v). Oral evidence of another coolie as to earnings of Rs.200/- per day has
not been properly appreciated.
For respondent-Insurance Company:
9(i). The learned MACT in rightly apportioned negligence among the
drivers of the two vehicles.
(ii). There were ‘11’ passengers in the auto at the time of accident.
Therefore, there is negligence on the part of the driver of the auto and the
same is properly considered by the learned MACT.
(iii). The contribution of both the driver of auto and the lorry at 50% is
rationally considered by the learned MACT.
(iv). There are no grounds to interfere.
12
VII. Points:
10. Now the points that arise for determination in these appeals are:
1) Whether the pleaded accident has occurred owing to the contributory
negligence of the driver of the auto and whether the findings of the
learned MACT to that extent are sustainable and the apportionment of
liability between the two vehicles involved in the accident is proper?
2) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded in respective
M.V.O.P.s is proper?
3) Whether the impugned order and decree dated 14.10.2014 in
M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2013 are sustainable in law and on facts or
whether any interference is necessary? If so, on what grounds?
4) Whether the impugned order and decree dated 14.10.2014 in
M.V.O.P.No.282 of 2014 are sustainable in law and on facts or
whether any interference is necessary? If so, on what grounds?
5) Whether the impugned order and decree dated 14.10.2014 in
M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2013 are sustainable in law and on facts or
whether any interference is necessary? If so, on what grounds?
6) Whether the impugned order and decree dated 14.10.2014 in
M.V.O.P.No.225 of 2013 are sustainable in law and on facts or
whether any interference is necessary? If so, on what grounds?
7) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.110 of 2015?
8) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.111 of 2015?
9) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.112 of 2015?
10) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.113 of 2015?
13
11. The result of point Nos.7 to 10 depends on the findings on point
Nos.3 to 6 and the answer to point nos.3 to 6 depends on the answer to
point Nos.1 and 2.
Point No.1:
Negligence:
Analysis:
12(i). It is clear that, except the evidence of R.W.1, there is no other
material placed by the respondent-Insurance Company to prove its stand
as to contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. The
claimants, to discharge the burden, examined the eye witness to the
accident.
(ii). R.W.1-G. Rama Krishna is working as an Assistant Manager in
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. He is not an eye witness to the
accident. His evidence during cross examination is that it is true that the
persons who died due to the accident are third parties as per the terms
and conditions of the policy. All four cases are relating to the death.
Respondent No.1 is the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle.
(iii). R.W.1 stated that the investigator appointed by the Insurance
Company did not visit the place of the accident nor were the statements
of any persons recorded. He has no personal knowledge about the
charge sheet filed by the Police. The vehicle insured with the company is
a heavy goods vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle is having driving
licence. He cannot say the degree of negligence on the part of the driver
of the vehicle insured with his Company. In the FIR and charge sheet it
14
is mentioned that the lorry bearing Registry No.A.P. 16 T W 6568 came
on the extreme right and dashed the railing and fell into a ditch. A
specific suggestion was given to R.W.1 that there was no negligence on
the part of the driver of the auto.
13(i). One Bokka Rajini, P.W.2, is cited as L.W.2 in the charge sheet-
Ex.A5. Her evidence is clear as to witnessing the accident and that
respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, in a bid to overtake a
another lorry proceeding ahead of his lorry, steered his vehicle to the
extreme right in a rash and negligent manner, without taking any
precautions and without blowing horn, hit the autorickshaw and the four
persons died in the accident.
(ii). During cross-examination, she has stated that when the
accident occurred, she was in the auto. She has mentioned about
number of the persons travelling in the auto. She has denied the
suggestion that due to overloading the auto, there was negligence and
the accident occurred and she has added that the lorry came at a high
speed and dashed the auto. Further, it is elicited that there was one
person each on either side of the driver of the auto. To deny the
negligence on the part of the respondent No.1, none are examined. At
least, there is no oath against oath. The charge sheet is filed against
respondent No.1.
15
14. R.W.1, in his cross examination, stated that he cannot say the
directions and he did not visit the accident spot. It is also elicited that two
vehicles can simultaneously pass on the highway.
15. When a charge sheet is specifically field against the driver of
the lorry, indicating him as an accused and when a witness has deposed
about the negligence of the driver of the lorry and when it is clear that the
driver of the lorry (offending vehicle), in the process of overtaking the
lorry moving in front of the same came on the extremely right side of the
road and dashed the auto, it can be understood that the offending vehicle
came towards the right side and the auto, on the opposite side, was
coming on the left side. It is not as if the auto came on the right side.
The evidence is suggesting that the auto was coming on the left side and
the offending vehicle viz. the lorry came on the right side and the same
has contributed to the accident. Therefore, the auto coming in the wrong
direction cannot be prima facie accepted. Further, the lorry being a heavy
vehicle, its driver should have been more careful while overtaking
another lorry moving in front of the offending vehicle. The absence of
care on the part of the driver of the lorry is conspicuous.
16. The overloading in the auto contributing to the accident is not
spoken to by anybody. The evidence regarding either of the drivers is
not available. The evidence of P.W.2 is clear and categorical as to the
negligence of the driver of the lorry and the crime record corroborates the
same. Merely because there is an overload, it is not automatic to draw
16
the negligence on the part of the vehicle with an overload. Sometimes,
there may be vehicles stationed with an overload. That does not mean
that the said vehicle or its driver has contributed for accident.
17(i). In a substantially identical situation, like one carrying a
motorcycle carrying two pillion riders as against the permissible one
pillion rider, which is a violation in terms of Section 128 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, whether negligence can be automatically inferred due to
such violation was considered at length by a Full Bench of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in a case between Devi Singh vs. Vikram Singh
and others
1
, the questions referred to the larger Bench are as follows:
1) Whether by violation of section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 by a motorcyclist, a presumption can arise with regard to
his negligence and thereby making it contributory as far as he is
concerned?
2) Whether a pillion rider while being carried in a motorcycle in
violation of section 128 of the Act contributes to the causation of
the accident simply because of statutory violation, or negligence
as a matter of fact should arise and further whether he can put
forth the stance that there has been a composite negligence by
the offending vehicle as well as by the driver of a two wheeled
motorcycle?
(ii). Relevant observations are made with reference to the march of
law and the provisions in paragraph Nos.7 to 13. They are as follows:
7. In Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, the Law of Torts by Justice G.P.
Singh, the following propositions of law regarding contributory
negligence have been stated:
1
2007 SCC OnLine MP 418; AIR 2008 MP 18 (FB)
17
“It has to be noted that negligence of the plaintiff which
can be described as contributory negligence must have
causal connection with the damage suffered by him.”
“The question simply is whether the plaintiff or the
deceased (in case of claims arising out of death) had
failed to take reasonable care of his own safety which
had contributed to the damage.”
Thus, there has to be some causal connection with the
damage suffered by the claimant to hold that the conduct
of the claimant amounted to contributory negligence.
Similarly, there has to be some conduct on the part of the
claimant showing absence of reasonable care of his own
safety which had contributed to the damage.
8. The meaning of “Contributory Negligence” as distinct from the
“Negligence” has been very aptly brought out in the judgment of
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Pramodkumar
Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, (2002) 6 SCC 455 :
AIR 2002 SC 2864 in para 8 at page 2866 in the following words:
“The question of contributory negligence arises when
there has been some act or omission on the claimant's
part, which has materially contributed to the damage
caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be
described as ‘negligence’. Negligence ordinarily means
breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the
expression “contributory negligence” it does not mean
breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person
to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or
his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as
an ‘author of his own wrong’.”
It will be clear from what has been held by Balakrishnan,
J., that negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal
duty to take care, whereas contributory negligence
18
means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for
the safety of either of himself or his property, so that he
becomes blameworthy in part as an “author of his own
wrong.”
9. In a decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, (2004) 2 MPLJ (SC) 267 : 2004
ACJ 55, Arijit Pasayat, J., relying on Charles-worth on Negligence,
has explained the meaning of ‘contributory negligence’ thus:
“Where an accident is due to negligence of both parties,
substantially there would be contributory negligence and
both would be blamed. In a case of contributory
negligence, the crucial question on which liability
depends would be whether either party could, by
exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the
consequence of other's negligence. Whichever party
could have avoided the consequence of other's
negligence would be liable for the accident. If a person's
negligent act or omission was the proximate and
immediate cause of death, the fact that the person
suffering injury was himself negligent and also
contributed to the accident or other circumstances by
which the injury was caused would not afford a defence
to the other. Contributory negligence is applicable solely
to the conduct of a plaintiff. It means that there has been
an act or omission on the part of the plaintiff which has
materially contributed to the damage, the act or omission
being of such a nature that it may properly be described
as negligence, although negligence is not given its usual
meaning. (See Charles-worth on Negligence, 3rd Edn.,
Para 328).”
Pasayat, J., of the Supreme Court, relying on Pollock on Torts also
explained “composite negligence” in the following words:
19
“Where a person is injured without any negligence on his
part but as a result of combined effect of the negligence
of two other persons, it is not a case of contributory
negligence in that sense. It is a case of what has been
styled by Pollock as injury by composite negligence.
(See Pollock on Torts, 15th Edn., p. 361).”
10. In Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Sudha Devi, 1991
ACJ 4 S.B. Sinha, J., as a learned Judge of the Patna High Court
was called upon to decide whether violation of section 85 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is pari-materia with section 128 of
the Act, amounts to contributory negligence on the part of the
driver of a two wheeler and His Lordship held in para-55 at page
11 of the judgment as reported in the ACJ that violation of the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act may not have anything to do
with the theory of contributory negligence unless the vehicle is
driven in violation of the traffic regulations.
11. Section 128 of the Act and Rule 123 of the Rules are quoted
hereinbelow:
“Section 128.Safety measures for drivers and pillion
riders — (1) No driver of a two wheeled motorcycle shall
carry more than one person in addition to himself on the
motorcycle and no such person shall be carried
otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to
the motorcycle behind the driver's seat with appropriate
safety measures.
(2) In addition to the safety measures mentioned in sub-
section (1), the Central Government may, prescribe other
safety measures for the drivers of two wheeled
motorcycles and pillion riders thereon.”
“R. 123.Safety devices in motorcycle. — No motorcycle
which has provision for pillion rider, shall be constructed
without provision for a permanent hand grip on the side
or behind the driver's seat and a foot rest and a
20
protective device covering not less than half of the rear
wheel so as to prevent the clothes of the person sitting
on the pillion from being entangled in the wheel.”
12. A plain reading of section 128 of the Act quoted above, would
show that sub-section (1) casts a duty on the driver of a two
wheeled motorcycle not to carry more than one person in addition
to himself on the motorcycle. Similarly, Rule 123 of the Rules
quoted above mentions the safety devices to be provided while
manufacturing a motorcycle. These provisions obviously are safety
measures for the drivers and pillion riders and breach of such
safety measures may amount to “negligence” but such negligence
will not amount to “contributory negligence” on the part of the
pillion rider or “composite negligence” on the part of the driver of
the motorcycle, unless such negligence was partly the immediate
cause of the accident or damage suffered by the pillion rider as
would be clear from the authorities discussed above.
13. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that if the damage in
the accident has not been caused partly on account of violation of
section 128 of the Act by the pillion rider of the motorcycle, the
pillion rider is not guilty of contributory negligence. Similarly, if the
damage suffered by the pillion rider has not been caused partly on
account of violation of section 128 of the Act by the driver, the
pillion rider cannot put up a plea of composite negligence by the
driver. In other words, if breach of section 128 of the Act, does not
have a causal connection with the damage caused to the pillion
rider, such breach would not amount to contributory negligence on
the part of the pillion rider of the motorcycle or composite
negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle.
18. In view of the aforestated reasons and discussion, the
apportionment of negligence between the two vehicles done by the
learned MACT is found not correct in the facts and circumstances of the
21
case and in view of absence of specific evidence. In any event, the
victims are third parties to both vehicles. For the reasons stated above,
the findings of the learned MACT that the pleaded accident has occurred
owing to the contributory negligence of the driver of the auto are found
not sustainable and hence, the apportionment of liability among the two
vehicles involved in the accident is found not proper. Point No.1 is
answered accordingly against the Insurance Company and in favour of
the claimants / appellants.
Point No.2:
Quantum of compensation:
Precedential guidance:
19(i). For having uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding
just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court provided guidelines as to
adoption of multiplier depending on the age of the deceased in Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.
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 Others
3
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
2
2009 (6) SCC 121
3
2017(16) SCC 680
22
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 Others
4
, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the
compensation under the head of loss of consortium can be awarded not
only to the spouse but also to the children and parents of the deceased
under the heads of parental consortium and filial consortium.
Just Compensation:
20. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others
5
, 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)
4
(2018) 18 SCC 130
5
(2013) 9 SCC 54
23
“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.
Analysis:
21. All the deceased are coolies and the income claimed by them is
Rs.200/- per day. The learned MACT has taken the income at Rs.100/-
per day. However, the learned MCT ought to have added future
prospects, taking note of the age, but did not do the same. Hence, it is
necessary to add future prospects and calculate the compensation.
22. 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:
24
Sl.
No
Head
Deceased No.1
(Palaparthi Parvathi)
in M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2013 /
M.A.C.M.A.No.110 of 2015
Deceased No.2
(Bokka Mahalakshmi)
in M.V.O.P.No.282 of 2014 /
M.A.C.M.A.No.111 of 2015
Deceased No.3
(Mariyamma)
in M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2013 /
M.A.C.M.A.No.112 of 2015
Deceased No.4
(Aruna Kumari @ Chanti)
in M.V.O.P.No.225 of 2013 /
M.A.C.M.A.No.113 of 2015
Adopted by
the learned
MACT
Fixed by this
Court
Adopted by
the learned
MACT
Fixed by this
Court
Adopted by
the learned
MACT
Fixed by this
Court
Adopted by
the learned
MACT
Fixed by
this Court
1.
Income of
the
deceased
(per annum)
Rs.36,000/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.36,000/-
2. Age of the
deceased
25 25 44 44 25 25 40 40
3. Future
prospects
-Nil- 40% -Nil- 25% -Nil- 40% -Nil- 25%
4.
Income on
adding
future
prospects
-Nil- Rs.50,400/- -Nil- Rs.45,000/- -Nil- Rs.50,400/- -Nil- Rs.45,000/-
5.
Deduction
towards
personal
expenses
1/3
rd
1/3
rd
1/2 1/3
rd
1/2 1/3
rd
1/2 1/3
rd
6.
Multiplicand Rs.24,000/- Rs.33,600/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.33,600/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.30,000/-
7.
Multiplier 18 18 14 14 18 18 15 15
8. Loss of
dependency
Rs.4,32,000/-
(Rs.24,000/-
x 18)
Rs.6,04,800/-
(Rs.33,600/- x
18)
Rs.2,52,000/-
(Rs.18,000/-
x 14)
Rs.4,20,000/-
(Rs.30,000/- x
14)
Rs.3,24,000/-
(Rs.18,000/-
x 18)
Rs.6,04,800/-
(Rs.33,600/- x
18)
Rs.2,70,000/-
(Rs.18,000/- x
15)
Rs.4,50,000/-
(Rs.30,000/-
x 15)
9. Loss of
estate
-Nil- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
10. Funeral
expenditure
Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
11. Loss of
consortium
Rs.10,000/-
@ 1
st
petitioner
Rs.1,20,000/-
@
(Rs.40,000/- x
3)
Rs.10,000/-
@ 1
st
petitioner
Rs.1,20,000/-
@
(Rs.40,000/- x
3)
Rs.10,000/-
@ 1
st
petitioner
Rs.80,000/- @
(Rs.40,000/- x
2)
Rs.10,000/- @
1
st
petitioner
Rs.1,20,000/-
@
(Rs.40,000/-
x 3)
12.
Loss of love
and
affection
Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.10,000x2
)- @
petitioners
Nos.2 and 3
-Nil-
Rs.30,000/-
(Rs.10,000x3
)- @
petitioners
Nos.1 to 3
-Nil-
Rs.10,000/-
@petitioner
No.2
-Nil-
Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.10,000x2 )-
@ petitioners
Nos.2 and 3
-Nil-
Total
Rs.4,72,000/-
But awarded
Rs.2,36,000/-
Rs.7,54,800/-
Rs.2,92,000/-
But awarded
Rs.1,46,000/-
Rs.5,70,000/-
Rs.3,44,000/-
But awarded
Rs.1,72,000/-
Rs.7,14,800/-
Rs.3,00,000/-
But awarded
Rs.1,50,000/-
Rs.6,00,000/-
23. In view of the discussion made above, claimants in respective
M.V.O.Ps are entitled for compensation vide M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2013;
M.V.O.P.No.282 of 2014, M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2013 and M.V.O.P.No.225 of
2013 at Rs.7,54,800/-, Rs.5,70,000/-, Rs.7,14,800/- and Rs.6,00,000/-
respectively. Therefore, Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
25
Point No.3:
24. In view of the discussion made above, the point No.3 is answered
concluding that the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2013 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,54,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. Therefore, the impugned
order and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2013 require modification accordingly.
Point No.4:
25. In view of the discussion made above, the point No.4 is answered
concluding that the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.282 of 2014 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. Therefore, the impugned
order and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.282 of 2014 require modification accordingly.
Point No.5:
26. In view of the discussion made above, the point No.5 is answered
concluding that the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2013 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,14,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. Therefore, the impugned
order and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2013 require modification accordingly.
26
Point No.6:
27. In view of the discussion made above, the point No.6 is answered
concluding that the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.225 of 2013 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. Therefore, the impugned
order and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.225 of 2013 require modification accordingly.
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 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
6
, 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:-
6
(2003) 2 SCC 274
7
2020 (04) SCC 413
27
“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
Others
8
at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs
25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that
the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than
the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court
cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since
the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor
Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just
compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence
produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred.
Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an
enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just
compensation.”
Point Nos.7 to 10:
29. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the conclusions drawn under
the point Nos.1 to 6, in the result,
(A) M.A.C.M.A.No.110 of 2015:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.281 of 2013 at Rs.2,36,000/- with interest at the rate
8
(2019) 2 SCC 192
28
of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,54,800/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
Apportionment:
(iii) Claimant No.1 / the husband of the deceased No.1 is entitled for
Rs.2,54,800/- with proportionate interest and costs.
(iv) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / the daughters of the deceased No.1 are
entitled for Rs.2,50,000/- each with proportionate interest.
(v) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / minor daughters are entitled to withdraw
the amount on attaining majority subject to the necessary
recognition as majors and permission by the learned MACT as
per the law.
(B) M.A.C.M.A.No.111 of 2015:
(vi) The appeal is allowed.
(vii) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.282 of 2014 at Rs.1,46,000/- with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,70,000/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
Apportionment:
(viii) Claimant No.1 / the husband of the deceased No.2 is entitled for
Rs.2,70,000/- with proportionate interest and costs.
29
(ix) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / the sons of the deceased No.2 are
entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest.
(C) M.A.C.M.A.No.112 of 2015:
(x) The appeal is allowed.
(xi) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2013 at Rs.1,72,000/- with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,14,800/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
Apportionment:
(xii) Claimant No.1 / the husband of the deceased No.3 is entitled for
Rs.3,14,800/- with proportionate interest and costs.
(xiii) Claimant No.2 / the daughter of the deceased No.3 is entitled for
Rs.4,00,000/- with proportionate interest.
(xiv) Claimant No.2 / minor daughter is entitled to withdraw the amount
on attaining majority subject to the necessary recognition as
major and permission by the learned MACT as per the law.
(D) M.A.C.M.A.No.113 of 2015:
(xv) The appeal is allowed.
(xvi) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.225 of 2013 at Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.6,00,000/-
30
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
Apportionment:
(xvii) Claimant No.1 / the husband of the deceased No.4 is entitled for
Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest and costs.
(xviii) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / the sons of the deceased No.4 are
entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- each with proportionate interest.
(E) Court fee:
(xix) Respective claimants in each case are liable to pay the Court fee
for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned
MACT.
(F) Liability:
(xx) Respondent No.2 in each case before the learned MACT is liable
to pay the compensation amount in view of the Insurance Policy.
(G) Time for Deposit and Mode of Payment:
(xxi) Time for payment / deposit of balance amount is two months.
(a) If the claimants furnish the bank account number within 15
days from today, Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company
shall deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the
claimants and file the necessary proof thereof before the
learned MACT.
(b) If the claimants fail to comply with xxi (a) above, Respondent
No.2 / Insurance Company shall deposit the amount before
31
the learned MACT and the claimants are entitled to withdraw
the amount at once on deposit.
(H) Costs:
(xxii) There shall be no order as to costs, in the appeals.
30. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals
shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:25.08.2026
Note:L.R. copy to be marked.
(B/o).
Knr
Whether the order is:
Speaking Reasoned ✓
Reportable ✓ Non-reportable
32
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.110, 111, 112 and 113 of 2015
25
th
August, 2026
Knr
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....