1

Date of reserved for Judgment :21.11.2025

Date of Pronouncement :27.02.2026

Date of uploading :27.02.2026

APHC010657742012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3520]

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 786/2012

Between:

1. PALLI DURGA & 4 OTS, W/O. LATE BANGARAYYA, R/O.

BALAYAGIPETA, KOTHAPETA (VILL& MANDAL) EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT.

2. PALLI RATNA KUMARI,, D/O. LATE BANGARAYYA, R/O.

BALAYAGIPETA, KOTHAPETA (VILL& MANDAL) EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT.

3. PALLI JYOTHI KUMARI,, W/O. BANGARAYYA, R/O. BALAYAGIPETA,

KOTHAPETA (VILL& MANDAL) EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

4. PALLI VEERABABU,, S/O. BANGARAYYA, R /O. BALAYAGIPETA,

KOTHAPETA (VILL& MANDAL) EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

(4THPETITONER BEING MINOR REP BY MOTHER 1STPETITIONER)

5. PALLI MANGA, W/O. BULI VEERANNA, R/O. BALAYAGIPETA,

KOTHAPETA (VILL& MANDAL) EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

2

1. V SATYANARAYANA E G DISTRICT 4 OTS, S/O. KONDAYYA, HINDU,

DRIVER R/O. EDARAPALLI VILLAGE, AMALAPURAM MANDAL, EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. NAMBUDI JAGAPATHIRAJU, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, OWNER OF

TRACTOR-CUM-TRAILER, R/O. YEDIDA VILLAGE, SITANAGARAM

MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD RAJAHMUNDRY, REP BY ITS

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJAHMUNDRY

4. IFFCOTOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL

MANAGER, G.K. TOWERS, DWARAKA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM.

5. MADDIMSETTY NAGA LAKSHMI, W/ O. VENKATASWAMY, R/O. D.NO.

3-126, KEDARLANKA, KAPLIESWARAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT. (R5 ADDED AS PER ORDERS IN IA NO. 1569/08, DT. 3 -11-

2008)

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be

pleased to

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. POLISETTY BALA VENKATA KOTESWARA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K CHIDAMBARAM

2. T MAHENDER RAO

3. M BHASKARA LAKSHMI

4. GUDI SRINIVASU

5. TURAGA SAI SURYA

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.786 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011

passed in M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram (for short “the learned MACT”). The

petitioners before the learned MACT are the appellants herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of the claim petition

filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- was claimed for the death of Palli Bangarayya (hereinafter referred

to as “the deceased”), the present appeal is filed.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the driver, owner and insurer of the

tractor bearing Registration No.AP 5P 5228 and Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein

are the insurer of trailer bearing No.AP 5X 7352 and the registered owner of

tractor respectively.

Case of the Claimants:

4(i). On 10.06.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased Palli Bangarayya, a

coconut plucker, after completion of coconut plucking work at Chinnagullapalem,

was returning to Kothapeta on his bicycle. When he reached near Old

Ramalayam Centre, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, the tractor coming from

4

the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed and ran over him,

as a result of which the deceased died on the spot.

(ii). As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 38 years, hale and

healthy, working as a coconut plucker and earning Rs.200/- per day. On account

of his untimely death, the petitioners lost their sole breadwinner and suffered

irreparable loss.

5. During the pendency of the petition, respondent No.2 died and the

petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead respondent

No.5 as owner of tractor, which was allowed.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 5 remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of the Respondent–Insurance Company:

7(i). The age, occupation, income of the deceased and the manner of accident

shall be proved.

(ii). Unless the petitioners/appellants establish ownership and insurance

coverage in respect of the vehicle i.e. tractor-cum-trailer, the insurer is not liable.

(iii). There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

8. On the strength of pleadings, the following Issues were settled for trial by

the learned MACT:

(1). Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

vehicle i.e., Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing No.AP 5P 5228 and AP 5X 7352

by its driver i.e., 1st respondent?

5

(2). Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what

amount and against whom?

(3). To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

9(i). The 1st petitioner/ one Palli Durga, was examined as P.W.1, One Palingi

Chittibabu, an eye witness, was examined as P.W.2 and one Palli Abbulu,

Coconut plucker and third party examined as P.W.3.

(ii). The petitioners relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3-

Postmortem Report and Ex.A4- Charge Sheet.

(iii). On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2-copies of insurance

policies were marked.

Findings of the learned MACT:

10(i). The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle

and that the deceased died on the spot.

(ii). The policy under Ex.B1 was in force on the date of accident.

(iii). Petitioners failed to establish that respondent No.5 was the owner/insured

of the tractor on the date of accident, as no original registration certificate was

produced.

(iv). In the absence of proof of ownership in favour of the person impleaded, the

insurer cannot be fastened with any liability.

6

Arguments in the Appeal:

For the Appellants:

11(i). The learned MACT failed to consider the statutory effect of Section 157 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that on transfer of a vehicle, the

insurance policy is deemed to be transferred.

(ii). The learned MACT erred in holding that non-production of the original

registration certificate is fatal.

(iii). The learned MACT ought to have held that the insurer is liable.

For the Respondents:

12(i). The petitioners failed to prove ownership and insurance in favour of the

person impleaded.

(ii). The dismissal of the claim is legal and proper.

(iii). There are no grounds to interfere.

13. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful

consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

14. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

1) Whether the pleaded road traffic accident, involvement of the vehicle i.e.

tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos. AP 5P 5228 and AP 5X 7352, negligence

of its driver, ownership and insurance coverage on the date of accident are

shown/proved by the claimants with legal evidence?

7

2) Whether dismissal of the claim by the learned MACT under the impugned

Judgment is sustainable in law and on facts or whether any interference is

necessary?

3) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what

quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

4) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

Mode of proving the accident, involvement of the vehicle, negligence,

ownership etc.

15. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the appreciation of evidence

in answering the question of fact as to negligence in a motor accident claim can

be based on the official records adopting the theory of probability with a holistic

approach. This approach stands fortified with the aid of provisions of Motor

Vehicles Act and the Rules and also the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court,

as follows:

Statutory and Precedential Guidance:

Statutory Guidance:

16(i). It is relevant to note that the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are

applicable in deciding the cases by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and they

are made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 176 of the Motor

Vehicles Act which reads as follows:

8

176. Power of State Government to make rules. —A State

Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect

the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules

may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the

particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect

of such applications;

(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an

inquiry under this Chapter;

(c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a

Claims Tribunal;

(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on

payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a

Claims Tribunal; and

(e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.

(ii). Chapter „11‟ of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 commencing from

Rule 455 to Rule 476A deals with the powers of the Tribunal and all other allied

aspects like form of application, registration, notice to parties, appearance and

examination of parties, local inspection, summary examination of parties, method

of recording evidence, adjournments, framing and determination of issues,

judgments and enforcements of awards, Court fee relating to claim petitions

applicability of Civil Procedure Code and the application for claim basis to award

the claim by the claims tribunal. Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989

reads as follows:

9

Rule 476: Application for claim :-

(7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall proceed

to award the claim on the basis of;-

(i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in

the accident;

(ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance

of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk;

(iii) Copy of First Information Report;

(iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from

the Medical Officer; and

(v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer

who has examined the victim.

(7A) Specification of amount of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal to each victim:- Where compensation is awarded to two

or more persons, the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the

amount payable to each of them.

17. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the crime record

can be the basis. The official acts done are presumed to be proper until a

contrary is proved particularly when some statutory recognition is given to such

official records.

18. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of

enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of

legislation the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and

circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of

10

standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering

a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road

accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimants shall have to establish is

preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and

consistent.

Precedential Guidance:

19. 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..”

Evidence:

20. Ex.A1 is the FIR indicating involvement of the vehicle, i.e. tractor-cum-

trailer bearing Nos.AP 5P 5228 and AP 5X 7352 (hereinafter referred to as “the

offending vehicle”). The suspect is shown as the driver of the vehicle. It is

relevant to note that the claim made by the legal representatives of the

deceased.

1

2009 (13) SCC 530

11

21. As per Ex.A1-FIR, while deceased was proceeding on a bicycle, the

offending vehicle driven by its driver came in a negligent manner, dashed the

deceased and ran over him, causing instantaneous death. The driver escaped.

Inquest report-Ex.A2 corroborates the same.

22. Ex.A4-charge sheet is laid against the driver of the offending vehicle who

is arrayed as Respondent No.1 before the learned MACT and herein. The charge

sheet reflects that the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle. As per

Ex.A4, the driver of the offending vehicle is responsible for the accident.

23. P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident, stated about the negligence of the

driver of the tractor with vehicle. Nothing important is elicited in his cross-

examination to disbelieve the accident, negligence or involvement of the

offending vehicle.

24. P.W.3 is also stated that he witnessed the accident and spoke about the

negligence of the driver.

25. It is relevant to note that no witnesses are examined on behalf of the

respondents, but Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 copies of polices are marked. The learned

MACT observed that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and

that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are cogent and shows that the deceased

died due to accident and answered issue No.1 by mentioning that it is answered

accordingly.

12

26. The learned MACT ought to have given a better and clearer finding.

Merely referring to the evidence and mentioning that the issue is answered

accordingly is an evasive exercise which shall be discouraged. When the issue

is clearly framed as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving, not answering it clearly and leaving it to the reader to infer from the

expression that “issue is answered accordingly” is a lamentable exercise on the

part of the trial Courts.

27. In the light of the statutory and precedential guidance and even from the

evidence available on record, the trial Court ought to have clearly held that the

negligence of driver of tractor is shown as the cause for the accident and that the

deceased died due to the pleaded accident.

28. In view of the above discussion, point No.1 is answered concluding that

from the evidence it is clear that the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of

the offending vehicle and death of the deceased are proved with legal evidence

necessary for answering the claim laid in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act which

contemplates summary enquiry.

Point No.2:

29. Ex.B1 Policy is standing in the name of N. Jagapathi Raju in respect of the

tractor, describing him as the insured. Said N. Jagapathi Raju is respondent No.2

herein and before the learned MACT. Period of insurance from 06.02.2007 to

13

05.02.2008 and the date of accident is 10.06.2007. Therefore, Ex.B1 policy is

covering the date of accident.

30. Ex.B2-policy is also standing in the name of Namburi Jagapathi Raju /

respondent No.2 herein in respect of trailer covering the period 11.01.2007 to

10.01.2008. The accident date is within the coverage period of policy.

31. Ex.B1-policy is issued by respondent No.3 and Ex.B2 policy is issued by

respondent No.4.

32. In the counter of respondent No.3, ownership of respondent No.2 in

respect of the offending vehicle is not disputed. Even respondent No.4, in its

counter, did not dispute the ownership of Namburi Jagapathi Raju / respondent

No.2 herein and the pleading is only a denial of the involvement of the offending

vehicle and putting the petitioners to strict proof of all allegations.

33. Respondent No.5 was impleaded consequent upon the death of

respondent No.2.

34. While addressing the liability of the Insurance Companies and the owner of

the offending vehicle, the learned MACT, clearly observed that the policy was in

force covering the date of accident, respondent No.2 is the registered owner but

the registration certificate in the name respondent No.5 indicating transfer of the

vehicle from respondent Nos.2 to 5 is not produced and dismissed the claim in

toto. The learned MACT failed in addressing the issue with proper sensitivity and

14

the required empathetic concern. Poor victims of the accident, who are

dependents of the deceased, are driven to the High Court.

35. It is settled law that policy runs with the vehicle but not with the owner.

Transfer of ownership will not absolve the insurance company from its liability

The Hon‟ble Apex Court in G. Govindan vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

and others

2

vide para No.8 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sana Vijaya

Rajaiah vs. Kannaboina Shankar Veeramallu

3

vide para No.7 have so held.

36. It is relevant to note that Respondent No.5 remained ex parte. It is not the

case of the Insurance Companies that there was no transfer of ownership.

Careful examination of the matter on hand clearly indicates non-application of

mind by the learned Presiding Officer of the learned MACT. With the evidence

on record unhesitatingly, this Court concludes that the findings as to exoneration

of the insurance companies from liability are not acceptable. At the time of

accident, both the trailer and tractor were intact and they were moving, as per

Ex.A1. Cross examination of respondent No.4 on P.W.3 shows that the front

portion of the tractor contacted the deceased but not the trailer portion, which

suggests that the trailer being intact with the tractor is not in dispute. Therefore,

both the tractor and trailer were in use at the time of accident and both were

insured with the respective insurance companies and policies vide Ex. B1 and

2

(1999) 3 SCC 754

3

2006 Supreme(AP) 1126; 2008 ACJ 1055

15

Ex.B2 in respect of the tractor and trailer respectively were in force as on the

date of accident.

37. Therefore, both respondent Nos.3 and 4- the insurance companies are

liable to pay compensation and the findings of the learned MACT contra are

liable to be set aside. Point framed is answered concluding that the insurance

companies are liable to pay compensation and the dismissal of the claim under

the impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside.

Point No.3:

Precedential guidance:

38(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.

4

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

5

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

4

2009 (6) SCC 121

5

2017(16) SCC 680

16

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

6

, 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:

39. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others

7

, the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows:

10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in

excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in

this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,

(2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was

held as follows: (SCC p. 280)

“10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to „make

an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it

to be just‟. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the

6

(2018) 18 SCC 130

7

(2013) 9 SCC 54

17

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.

40. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased is not in dispute.

Deceased is said to be a coconut vendor and the same is confirmed by P.W.2

and P.W.3, who are eye witnesses and also involved in the same trade. Earning

was pleaded at Rs.200/- per day. Upon considering the socio economic

circumstances of the year 2007, the age of the deceased etc., this Court finds

that the income of the deceased can be safely taken at Rs.4,000/- per month and

up to 30% can be added towards future prospects considering his age, whereby

the income comes to Rs.5,200/- per month and Rs.62,400/- per annum.

41. Upon considering the number of dependents of the deceased, 1/4

th

of the

income of the deceased is found fit to be deducted towards personal

18

expenditure. Then his contribution to the family shall be Rs.46,800/-, which can

be considered as multiplicand. For the age of 38 years, the multiplier applicable

is „15‟. Upon application of the same, the entitlement of the claimants under the

head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,02,000/-.

42. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the

conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.1 to 5 towards loss of

consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards

loss of estate.

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

claimants for reasonable compensation is found as follows:

44. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the discussion made above, in the

context of the case, Point No.3 framed is answered concluding that the claimants

are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Head Fixed by this

Court

(i) Loss of dependency Rs.7,02,000/-

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

(iii) Loss of Consortium Rs.2,00,000/-

@ Rs.40,000/- each

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

Total compensation awarded Rs.9,32,000/-

Interest (per annum) 7.5%

19

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

otherwise entitled:-

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

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

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

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

observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in:

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others

8

, 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.

9

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

10

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

8

(2003) 2 SCC 274

9

2020 (04) SCC 413

10

(2019) 2 SCC 192

20

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 No.4:

46. In the result, the appeal is allowed as follows:

(i) The judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned

MACT is hereby set aside.

(ii) Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,32,000/- with interest

at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization.

(iii) Claimants are liable to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the

compensation, before the learned MACT.

(iv) Apportionment:

(a) Claimant No.1 / wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.3,72,000/-

with proportionate interests and costs.

(b) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 / daughters of the deceased are entitled to

Rs.1,40,000 /- each with proportionate interest.

(c) Claimant No.4 / son of the deceased is entitled to Rs.1,40,000/-

with proportionate interest.

21

(d) Claimant No.5 / mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.1,40,000/-

with proportionate interest.

(v) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 / Insurance companies are liable to pay the

compensation.

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

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

from today, the respondents / Insurance Companies 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 vi(a) above, the respondents /

Insurance Companies shall deposit the amount before the learned

MACT and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount at

once on deposit.

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

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

stand closed.

____________________________

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

Date:27.02.2026

Note:L.R. copy to be marked.

(B/o).

Knr

22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

M.A.C.M.A.No.786 of 2012

27.02.2026

Knr