1

APHC010640062012

Judgment reserved on : 17.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on : 08.01.2026

Judgment uploaded on : 08.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3520]

Thursday, The Eighth Day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Six

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3601/2012

Between:

1. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL

MANAGER O/O.KURNOOL BRANCH, KURNOOL. ...APPELLANT

AND

1. K SUBBALAKSHMAMMA 04 ORS, W/O.LATE BALA SUBRAMANYAM,

HINDU, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O.H.NO.29/2007- A, SBI COLONY,

NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

2. K SRI RAM, S/O.LATE BALA SUBRAMANYAM, HINDU, OCC: PVT

EMPLOYEE R/O.H.NO.29/2007-A, SBI COLONY, NANDYAL, KURNOOL

DISTRICT.

3. K SEETHAMALAKSHMI, D/O.LATE BALA SUBRAMANYAM, HINDU

R/O.H.NO.29/2007-A, SBI COLONY, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

4. K ANANTHALAKSHMI, D/O.LATE BALA SUBRAMANYAM, HINDU

R/O.H.NO.29/2007-A, SBI COLONY, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

5. K PARDHASARATHI REDDY , S/O.VENU MURALIDHAR REDDY, AGED:

MAJOR OWNER OF TATA SUMO BEARING NO.AP 04 A 6633

R/O.THOGADCHEEDU [V], PANYAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT -

518 112.

2

...Respondent(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be

pleased to

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 7318 OF 2012

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

condone the delay of 18 days in representation of MACMASR No.43855/2012

filed against decree dated 03.07.2012 passed in OP No.216/2011 on the file of

MACT cum III Addl. District Judge, Kurnool District at Nandyal

IA NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP 7601 OF 2012

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

grant stay of execution of the decree including all further proceedings in OP No.

216 of 2011 passed on 3-7-2012 on the file of III Additional District Judge-Cum-

Motor Accident Clams Tribunal, Kurnool at Nandyal and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 1369 OF 2013

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

vacate the interim stay passed in MACMA.MP.No. 7601 of 2012 in MACMA.No.

3601 of 2012 dt. 04/12/2012

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. SRINIVASA RAO KATAKAMSETTY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. A JAYA SANKARA REDDY

2. K NAGA PHANINDRA

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.3601 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The 2

nd

respondent in M.V.O.P.No.216 of 2011 questioning the liability and

the quantum of compensation awarded under order and decree dated

03.07.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- III Additional

District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal [‘for short ‘MACT’] filed the present appeal.

2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and the respondent No.5

herein is the owner of the offending vehicle, arrayed as respondent No.1 before

the learned MACT.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as

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

learned MACT.

The case of the claimants:–

4. [i] One Bala Subrahmanyam [hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’] is

the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 to 4. On the

fateful day i.e., on 16.01.2010, the deceased while returning on his motor cycle

after attending duty, at about 7.30 p.m. near Shakti Petrol bunk, Nandyal within

4

the limits of Nandyal Taluk Police Station, one TATA Sumo vehicle bearing

No.AP 04 A 6633 [for short ‘the offending vehicle’] came in opposite direction in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, causing the accident

and instantaneous death of the deceased.

[ii] A case in Crime No.09 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304-A

IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and charge

sheeted was also laid.

[iii] The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle, employed by the 1

st

respondent and the vehicle

was insured with the 2

nd

respondent. Therefore, the respondents are liable to

pay compensation.

[iv] The deceased was working as Development Officer, Grade-I in

Union India Insurance Company Ltd./2

nd

respondent and was drawing a salary of

Rs.38,282/- per month. The sudden death of the deceased made the claimants

as orphans and they deserve reasonable compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

5. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle, remained

ex parte.

The case of the 2

nd

respondent-Insurance Company/appellant :-

6. There was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle, said driver

did not possess valid and effective driving license and the 2

nd

respondent is not

liable to pay any compensation.

5

Findings of the learned MACT:-

7. [i] Learned MACT considering the evidence of eye witnesses and

documents covered by Exs.A1 to A5, believed the negligence of the driver of the

offending vehicle, while discarding the evidence of RW.1 on the ground that he is

not an eye witness to the accident.

[ii] While imposing the liability, learned MACT found that the absence of

driving of license to the driver of the offending vehicle is not proved by the

Insurance Company and no other violations are shown.

[iii] While quantifying the compensation, considered the net salary of the

deceased as Rs.26,307/- per month with reference to Ex.X1-Salary Certificate

and after deducting 1/3

rd

towards personal expenditure, taken the contribution

@Rs.17,538/-; adopted multiplier ‘11’ and awarded a compensation of

Rs.23,30,016/-.

[iv] Learned MACT considering that claimant Nos.2 to 4 are not

dependents, allowed the claim against the claimant No.1 alone. However, it was

also observed that the death benefits are received and pension is also drawn for

a sum of Rs.10,944/- by the claimant No.1.

Arguments in the appeal :-

6

For the appellants:-

8. [i] Ex.A1-FIR revealed that there is an unknown vehicle. Therefore, the

involvement of the offending vehicle TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 04 A 6633

cannot be believed. The person, who gave the complaint under Ex.A1, brother of

the deceased is not an eye witness; PW.2 said to be an eye witness did not give

report to Police, therefore, Ex.A1 [FIR] and the evidence of PW.2 cannot be

considered.

[ii]. The Income Tax should have been deducted while calculating the

income @ Rs.26,307/-.

[iii] Learned MACT ought to have considered the death benefits

received by the claimant No.1 for a sum of Rs.24,02,210/- and pension

@Rs.10,944/- per month.

[iv] The deceased should have been retired at the age of 58years, had

he been alive. Therefore, the application of multiplier ‘11’ is not correct.

For the claimants:-

9. [i] Investigation was done and charge sheet was also filed against the

driver of the offending vehicle by the Police. The presumption as to

creditworthiness of the FIR, charge sheet can be drawn in favour of the

claimants.

7

[ii] Getting pension and receiving of death benefits is no bar for

awarding compensation. The Tribunal ought to have added future prospects and

awarded more compensation.

[iii] Tribunal should have awarded compensation under the heads of

loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenditure, in accordance with the

settled law and practice and compensation granted require modification

accordingly.

10. Perused the evidence on record.

11. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both

sides.

12. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are that -

1) Whether the accident and its occurrence due to the negligence of

the driver of the offending vehicle/ TATA Sumo bearing No. AP 04 A

6633 is proved?

2) Whether the compensation of Rs.20,30,016/- awarded by the

learned MACT under the impugned order and decree dated

03.07.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.216 of 2011 is just, reasonable, and

adequate? Or require any modification either by way of

enhancement or reduction? If so, to what tune?

3) What is the result of the appeal?

8

Points No.1 :

13. [i] Date and time of the accident are 16.01.2010 at 7.30 p.m., the

registration of FIR is on 16.01.2010 and it was registered at 21.00hrs; the FIR

and the report enclosed to the FIR, are indicating that unknown vehicle hit the

motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling.

[ii] Ex.A2-Inquest report was indicating that inquest was conducted on

17.01.2010 from 8.00 a.m. onwards. In Col.No.3 of inquest report-Ex.A2, it is

mentioned that the crime vehicle is TATA Sumo and its driver has driven the

same in a rash and negligent manner. Col.No.15 of Ex.A2 indicates the reason

for the death etc., number of the crime vehicle is also mentioned as AP 04 A

6633. Therefore, the doubt projected by the appellant-Insurance Company that

the offending vehicle is planted, merits no consideration. There is no much delay

in mentioning details of the vehicle.

[iii] Further, the M.V.A. report - Ex.A4 is also indicating the involvement

of the Crime Vehicle in the accident. Added to all these things, the statements of

the witnesses cited in the charge sheet-Ex.A5 are the basis for fixing the

culpability on the part of the driver of the TAT Sumo /offending vehicle.

[iv] Further it is relevant to note that PW.2, K.Brahma Reddy is an eye

witness to the accident. He is cited as LW.3 in the charge sheet -Ex.A5. His

evidence is clear and categorical. It is also relevant to note that he has informed

9

the brother of the deceased about the occurrence of the accident and in turn the

brother of the deceased gave report to the police under Ex.A1. During the cross-

examination of PW.2/eye witness, at least suggestion theory was not adopted

disputing the involvement of the offending vehicle viz., TATA Sumo. Only

suggestion given was that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the

driving license.

[v] When the evidence covered by Ex.A1-FIR, EX.A2-inquest, Ex.A4-

M.V.I. report and Ex.A5-charge sheet are seen in conjunction with the evidence

of PW.2, the excuse pressed by the appellant -Insurance Company that the

offending vehicle TATA Sumo did not involve in the accident, found fit to be

ignored as it is a lame and baseless excuse, so the appellant -Insurance

company cannot be exonerated from the liability.

14. Here in this context, to fortify the above conclusion, it is found proper to

note the statutory and precedential guidance in respect of appreciating

occurrence and the issue of negligence, in motor accident claims which are as

follows:-

Statutory Guidance:

15. (i). As per Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State

Governments are entitled to make rules for the purpose of carrying effect to the

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

10

(ii). In relation to claims before the learned MACT, Rule 455 to Rule 476

of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, vide Chapter No.11 provides

comprehensive guidance. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,

1989, the claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim basing on the

registration certificate of the vehicle, insurance policy, copy of FIR and Post-

mortem certificate etc.

Precedential Guidance:

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road

Transport Corporation

1

, in para 15 observed as follows:

“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic

view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an

accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be

possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish

their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard

of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said

purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective

stories set forth by both the parties..”

17. It is relevant to refer the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this

Court, wherein I am one of the members, in a case between Pepakayala

Nagaratnam and Ors. Vs. N.Raghunadha and 2 Ors.

2

vide MACMA No.3020

of 2016, considered several aspects of appreciating and relying on the record

1

2009 (13) SCC 530

2

2025 SCC Online AP 2656

11

submitted by Police and standard of proof vide observations at para 16 to 18 of

the judgment, which reads as follows:-

“16. In a case between Bhagwan Ram and Ors. Vs. Deen Dayal and

Ors.

3

, while considering the nature of proof is required for believing the

negligent driving in Motor Accident Claims, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan

found that Certificate and the copies of documents prepared by the Police on

the spot, including the Challan, First Information Report etc. are admissible,

even in the absence of statement of eye witnesses and the same can be the

basis to believe the negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, vide

para-11 which reads as follows:

“11. The fact that any of the eye witness or the police personnel and

authorities, who had prepared the documents - certified copies of challan Exhibit-

1, First Information Report as Exhibit-2, Naksha Mauka as Exhibit-4, Halat Mauka

as Exhibit-5, Postmortem Report as Exhibit-10 were not examined is of no

consequence. The said documents being certified copies of public documents

even in absence of such statements are admissible in evidence as held by this

Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v.

Devilal & Ors., reported at 1991 ACJ 230 and Shrwan Kumar v. Rajasthan

State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., reported at 1995 ACJ 337. It was

held by this Court in the case of Shrwan Kumar as under:-

"18. Public documents like the first information report and the report of the

mechanical inspection of the bus can be taken into consideration and this point is

no longer res integra so far as this court is concerned. In Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation v. Devilal, 1991 ACJ 230 (Rajasthan) , it was observed that

strictly speaking, provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable before the Tribunal;

if a document is a certified copy of a public document it need not be proved by

calling a witness or the person who prepared it.”

3

2013 (0) Sc (Raj) 812

12

17. In Anitha Sarma and Others Vs. New Indian Assurance

Company Ltd.

4

, the Honble Apex Court observed that in Motor Accident

Claims, standard of proof is one of the preponderance of possibilities render

beyond reasonable doubt; approach and role of the Courts, while examining

the evidence in accident cases, ought not to be to find fault with non-

examination of the best eye witnesses, as may happen in criminal Trial, but

instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the

parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not

true. The observations in para-17 are as follows:-

“ 17. Unfortunately, the approach of the High Court was not sensitive

enough to appreciate the turn of events at the spot, or the appellant-claimants'

hardship in tracing witnesses and collecting information for an accident which took

place many hundreds of kilometers away in an altogether different State. Close to

the facts of the case in hand, this Court in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand

[Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 828 :

(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 605] , viewed that : (SCC p. 638, para 12)

“12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed [Amir Chand v.

Parmeshwari, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 9302] the case was by way of disbelieving

the testimony of Umed Singh, PW 1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally

conjectural. Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a good citizen,

Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant by helping her to reach the

doctor's chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets medical

treatment. The evidence of Umed Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he

did not file a complaint himself. We are constrained to repeat our observation that

the total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was not sensitized enough to

appreciate the plight of the victim.

…

‘15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of

the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident

caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done

by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the

touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond

reasonable doubt could not have been applied.”

4

2021(1) SCC 171

13

18. In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Vs. Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors.

5

, the Hon’ble Division Bench of

High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V.

Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of

decisions. The point for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench

was that in holding an inquiry in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, what is the

procedure to be followed and whether the F.I.R. can be basis for

considering the claim. Observations in para 5 to 7 are as follows:

“5. Point:

Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"),

the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an

inquiry into the claim and make an award determining just compensation, etc. In

holding any such inquiry, Section 169 of the Act mandates the Tribunal to follow

such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules. The Tribunal was

conferred with the powers of a civil Court for the specified purposes and under

Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims Tribunal was directed to follow the procedure of

summary trial as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal

was cautioned not to reject any application on the ground of any technical flaw and

was also obligated to obtain whatever information necessary from the police,

medical and other authorities. It is true that sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules

states that the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of

registration certificate of the motor vehicle, insurance certificate or Policy, copy of

first information report, post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the

medical officer and the nature of treatment given by the medical Officer.

6. The said sub-rule obviously refers to the relevant dependable criteria for

assessment of the compensation, which is patently illustrative and can never be

considered to be exhaustive. This Sub-rule stating the basis to award the claim, is

obviously subject to the prohibition against depending on any technical flaw and

the procedure for summary trial to be followed by the Tribunal. The said sub-rule

cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation imposed on the Tribunal to determine

5

2009 Supreme (AP) 136=2010(2) ALD 403=2009(3) ALT 260

14

the just compensation after an inquiry, in which an opportunity of being heard is

given to the parties. The judicial determination of the questions in controversy

before the Tribunal in terms of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act cannot be confined

to consideration of the five documents referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the

Rules alone and exclude any other oral or documentary evidence. The procedure

of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure which the Tribunal shall

follow under Rule 476 of the Rules itself mandates taking all such evidence as may

be produced by both sides in support of their respective versions, apart from the

evidence which the Court, of its own motion, causes to be produced as per Section

262 read with Sections 254 and 255 of the said Code. Sub-rule (7) to be

understood in the light of the object and scheme of the Act, is a directory provision

referring to some of the documents which can offer guidance to the Tribunal in

discharge of its statutory duty and the word "shall" used in the said: subrule has to

be necessarily understood as "may".

7. That apart, to say that the, first information report alone should be the

conclusive basis for determining the manner of the accident, even in spite of the

availability of other dependable evidence on record on that aspect, will be

offending the plain language of the statute and if that were the purport of sub-rule

(7), it cannot be considered valid, as any such delegated legislation cannot travel

beyond the legislation itself.”

18. For all the aforestated reasons, point No.1 is answered against the

appellant and in favour of the claimants concluding that the accident and its

occurrence is due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle - TATA

sumo bearing No.AP 04 A 6633 is proved.

Point No.2:-

19. The fist fold of objection of the appellant/Insurance Company is that death

benefits are received by the claimants and claimant No.1 is receiving pension.

Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive.

15

20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between Helen C Rebello (MRs.) and

Others And Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another

6

,

considering the objection as to receiving of Provident Fund etc., viz. other

pecuniary advantages, while computing the compensation payable in terms of

Motor Vehicles Act, relevant observations are made in paragraphs 31 to 35 of the

judgment, which are as follows:-

“31. Submission by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the insurance

money is by virtue of a contractual relationship between the deceased and the

insurance company and is payable to the legal heirs of the deceased in terms of the

contract. Such money cannot be said to have been received by the heirs only on

account of the death of the deceased, but truly it is a fruit of the premium paid by the

deceased during his lifetime. The deceased bought this insurance policy as an act of

his prudence, to confer benefit either on himself or on his heirs in case of death.

This amount is receivable by the claimant irrespective of accidental death, even if he

would have died a natural death. He further submits that the interpretation given by

the High Court confers benefit on the tortfeasor for his negligence and wrong

leading to untimely death without any contribution by him. It permits him to escape

from the liability cast by the statute. Thus, his submission is that any amount

payable under any contract of social assurance or any insurance, ought not to be

deducted as the same is payable to the heirs because of the contract and not on

account of the death of the insured person. Referring to the dictionary meaning of

the word “compensation”, he submits it would mean anything given to make things

equal in value. He submits that in this case the death of the deceased-husband of

the claimant which was due to the negligence of the respondents has to be offset by

a just equivalent, where the claimants are put back in a position where they would

have been but for such death. On this, he draws the conclusion that the benefits of

the insurance policy cannot be deducted while awarding the compensation. On the

other hand, learned counsel for the respondents restricted the argument as was

6

(1999) 1 SCC 90

16

advanced before the High Court and submitted that the High Court, after considering

all aspects including English decisions and the decisions of this Court, rightly

concluded to deduct the life insurance money out of the compensation payable to

the claimant.

32. So far as the general principle of estimating damages under the common

law is concerned, it is settled that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by

balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future pecuniary benefits that

would have accrued to him but for the death with the “pecuniary advantage” which

from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death. In other words, it is the

balancing of loss and gain of the claimant occasioned by the death. But this has to

change its colour to the extent a statute intends to do. Thus, this has to be

interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is very

clear, to which there could be no doubt that this Act delivers compensation to the

claimant only on account of accidental injury or death, not on account of any other

death. Thus, the pecuniary advantage accruing under this Act has to be deciphered,

correlating with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor

Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by accidental injury

or death and not other forms of death. If there is natural death or death by suicide,

serious illness, including even death by accident, through train, air flight not

involving a motor vehicle, it would not be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Thus, the application of the general principle under the common law of loss and gain

for the computation of compensation under this Act must correlate to this type of

injury or death, viz., accidental. If the words “pecuniary advantage” from whatever

source are to be interpreted to mean any form of death under this Act, it would dilute

all possible benefits conferred on the claimant and would be contrary to the spirit of

the law. If the “pecuniary advantage” resulting from death means pecuniary

advantage coming under all forms of death then it will include all the assets

moveable, immovable, shares, bank accounts, cash and every amount receivable

under any contract. In other words, all heritable assets including what is willed by

the deceased etc. This would obliterate both, all possible conferment of economic

security to the claimant by the deceased and the intentions of the legislature. By

such an interpretation, the tortfeasor in spite of his wrongful act or negligence, which

contributes to the death, would have in many cases no liability or meagre liability. In

17

our considered opinion, the general principle of loss and gain takes colour of this

statute, viz., the gain has to be interpreted which is as a result of the accidental

death and the loss on account of the accidental death. Thus, under the present Act,

whatever pecuniary advantage is received by the claimant, from whatever source,

would only mean which comes to the claimant on account of the accidental death

and not other forms of death. The constitution of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

itself under Section 110 is, as the section states:

“… for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of

accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, …”.

33. Thus, it would not include that which the claimant receives on account of other

forms of deaths, which he would have received even apart from accidental death.

Thus, such pecuniary advantage would have no corelation to the accidental death

for which compensation is computed. Any amount received or receivable not only on

account of the accidental death but that which would have come to the claimant

even otherwise, could not be construed to be the “pecuniary advantage”, liable for

deduction. However, where the employer insures his employee, as against injury or

death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the

happening of such incident may be an amount liable for deduction. However, our

legislature has taken note of such contingency through the proviso of Section 95.

Under it the liability of the insurer is excluded in respect of injury or death, arising out

of and in the course of employment of an employee.

34. This is based on the principle that the claimant for the happening of the same

incidence may not gain twice from two sources. This, it is excluded thus, either

through the wisdom of the legislature or through the principle of loss and gain

through deduction not to give gain to the claimant twice arising from the same

transaction, viz., the same accident. It is significant to record here in both the

sources, viz., either under the Motor Vehicles Act or from the employer, the

compensation receivable by the claimant is either statutory or through the security of

the employer securing for his employee but in both cases he receives the amount

without his contribution. How thus an amount earned out of one's labour or

contribution towards one's wealth, savings, etc. either for himself or for his family

which such person knows under the law has to go to his heirs after his death either

18

by succession or under a Will could be said to be the “pecuniary gain” only on

account of one's accidental death. This, of course, is a pecuniary gain but how this

is equitable or could be balanced out of the amount to be received as compensation

under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no corelation between the two amounts. Not

even remotely. How can an amount of loss and gain of one contract be made

applicable to the loss and gain of another contract. Similarly, how an amount

receivable under a statute has any corelation with an amount earned by an

individual. Principle of loss and gain has to be on the same plane within the same

sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law.

35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred

payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his

service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective

of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the

amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the

happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly,

family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form

of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the

heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the

accidental death. No corelation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is

received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract

with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is

receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums.

In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in

terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the

claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's

death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the

amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all

a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all

these have no corelation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned

only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the

periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for

deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and

19

same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no

semblance of any corelation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for

which he receives the amount which has no corelation to the compensation

computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As

aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of

the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the

fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of

the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he

receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable

under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life

insurance policy is contractual.

21. In view of the above authority, the objection of the Insurance Company that

death benefits and pension are paid to claimant No.1, found not tenable, for the

simple reason that the entitlement for pension or death benefits would happen in

any other kind of demise of the deceased other than the accident referred in this

case. Pecuniary benefit received is not directly related to the accident referred in

the case. Therefore, counting the same for reducing the compensation payable

does not arise.

Quantum of Compensation:

Precedential guidance:

22. (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.

20

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.

7

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

8

case directed for adding future prospects at

50% in respect of permanent employment where the deceased is below 40

years, 30% where deceased is between 40-50 years and 15% where the

deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, in respect of self employed etc.,

recommended addition of income at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at

25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years and at 10% where the

deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, awarding compensation under

conventional heads like loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenditure

at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is also provided in the

same Judgment.

(iii). Further in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram

and Others

9

, 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.

7

2009 (6) SCC 121

8

2017(16) SCC 680

9

(2018) 18 SCC 130

21

23. In view of the precedential guidance referred above, more particularly on

consideration of evidence on record, this Court find that monthly income at

Rs.26,307/- taken by the learned MACT for the deceased is proper. The age of

the deceased as per the inquest and Post Mortem is ‘47’ years. The income of

the deceased as per the evidence of PW.3 is Rs.26,307/- and he was not cross-

examined. Ex.X1 is the Salary Certificate and Ex.X2 is the Pay Slip and Ex.X3 is

the Form -16. Even as per Ex.X3-From No.16, which is after deducting of the

income tax, the annual income is Rs.3,91,000/-. Adding future prospects to an

extent of 25% is permissible since the deceased is between 40-50 years.

Therefore, to the income shown at Rs.26,307/-, there can be addition by 25%

whereby the income comes to Rs.32,883.75/-, which comes to Rs.3,94,605/-

p.a.. After deducting 1/3

rd

of the same, towards annual contribution of the

deceased to the family, comes to [ Rs.3,94,605-1,31,535/-] = Rs.2,63,070/-. For

the age group of ‘47’ multiplier applicable as per the Sarla Verma’s case is ‘13’,

then the entitlement comes to Rs.34,19,910/-.

[ii] However, the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the

head of loss of consortium and under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of

estate Rs.15,000/- each.

[iii] Although the dependency is not there for claimant Nos.2 to 4, they

are entitled for reasonable amounts apart from the head of loss of parental

22

consortium. Therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- is apportioned to their shares, which would

be inclusive of loss of parental consortium.

24. Therefore, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation in

comparison to the award made by the Tribunal is as follows:-

Head Compensation awarded by

the MACT

Fixed by this

Court

(i) Loss of Dependency Rs.23,15,016 /- Rs.34,19,910 /-

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

[for the 1

st

claimant only]

Rs.1,60,000/-

[@ 40,000/-each

entitled for the 4

claimants]

(iii) Funeral and obsequies expenses Rs.5,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

(vii) Transportation Expenses Rs.5,000/-

(vi) Loss of estate -Nil- 15,000/-

Total compensation awarded Rs. 23,30,016 /- Rs.36,14,910/-

25. In the light of the analysis made and in view of the findings of this Court,

Points No.2 is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that they are

entitled for compensation of Rs.36,14,910/- with interest @6% p.a. and the

impugned order and decree required to be modified accordingly.

26. 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

23

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

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in:

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others

10

, 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.

11

at para 33 of the judgment, as

follows:-

“33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount

claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim

petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just

compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded

especially where the claimant is a minor.”

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

Others

12

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

10

(2003) 2 SCC 274

11

2020 (04) SCC 413

12

(2019) 2 SCC 192

24

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.”

27. Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal

or cross appeal by the claimants is the next question. The legal position as to

powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms

of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the

learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company

(Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of

compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the

absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench

of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E.

Suseelamma and others

13

in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point

No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled

for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the

light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal

position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation

and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just

compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can

enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal

or cross-objection by the claimants.

13

2023 SCC Online AP 1725

25

28. Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National

Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (12 supra) case

are in compliance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Surekha and

Others vs. Santosh and Others

14

.

29. In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (13 supra) case, in Civil

Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “it is well stated that in the matter of

Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court

should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is

awarded to the affected person or the claimants”. While addressing a case where

the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the

claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made.

Point No.3:-

30. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn under points 1

and 2, in the result, appeal is dismissed as follows:-

[i] The compensation awarded under the impugned decree and order is

modified and enhanced to Rs. Rs.36,14,910/-, with interest @6% p.a.

14

(2021) 16 SCC 467

26

[ii] The claimants/petitioners shall pay the Court fee in respect of the

enhanced amount of compensation.

Apportionment:-

[iii] Claimants No.2 to 4 are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- each, which shall

be inclusive of the compensation amount under the head of loss of

parental consortium.

[iv] Claimant No.1 is entitled for the remaining amount of compensation

@Rs. 33,14,910/-, with proportionate interest.

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

(a) If the claimants furnish the bank account number within 15 days

from today, the 2

nd

respondent-Insurance Company/appellant shall

deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the claimants

and file the necessary proof before the learned MACT.

(b) If the claimants fail to comply v(a) above, the 2

nd

respondent-

Insurance Company/appellant shall deposit the amount before the

learned MACT and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the

amount at once on deposit.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall

stand closed.

____________________________

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

Date: 08.01.2026

Note:-

L.R. copy to be marked.

B/o. Pnr

27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.3601 of 2012

Dated 08.01.2026

Pnr

28

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A. No.3601 of 2012

% 08.01.2026

# M/s.United India Insurance Co Ltd, Rep By Its Divisional Manager O/o.Kurnool

Branch, Kurnool.

. …. Appellant

Versus

$ K Subbalakshmamma 04 Ors, W/o.Late Bala Subramanyam, Hindu,

Occ:House wife, R/o.H.No.29/2007-A, SBI Colony, Nandyal, Kurnool District

and 4 Others.

…. Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Srinivasa Rao Katakamsetty

! Counsel for the Respondents : 1. A JAYA SANKARA REDDY

2. K NAGA PHANINDRA

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

2009 (13) SCC 530

2025 SCC Online AP 2656

2013 (0) sc (Raj) 812

2021(1) SCC 171

2009 Supreme (AP) 136=2010(2) ALD 403=2009(3) ALT 260

(1999) 1 SCC 90

2009 (6) SCC 121

2017(16) SCC 680

(2018) 18 SCC 130

(2003) 2 SCC 274

2020 (04) SCC 413

(2019) 2 SCC 192

29

*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A. No.3601 of 2012

# Jangamareddygari ramathulasamma, w/o. J.Kesava Reddy

R/o. Thimmampeta village, garladinne mandal, Anantapur District.

…. Petitioner

Versus

$ K Subbalakshmamma 04 Ors, W/o.Late Bala Subramanyam, Hindu,

Occ:House wife, R/o.H.No.29/2007-A, SBI Colony, Nandyal, Kurnool District and

4 Others

…. Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 08.01.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may

be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair

copy of the Order ? Yes/No

____________________________

A. HARIHARANADHA SARMA, J