The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium."

S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of

 compensation awarded

1. Loss of Dependency …… Rs. 9,87,187.00

2. Loss of Estate …… Rs. 15,000.00

3. Funeral Expenses …… Rs. 15,000.00

4. Loss of Consortium

To the wife, two

Children and mother

Of the deceased 40,000 x 4 …… Rs. 1,60,000.00

 ---------------------

Total …… Rs. 11,77,187.00

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

****

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1445 of 2006

Between:

1. Macharla Lakshmi Kanthamma,

W/o.Ramalingachari(late), Hindu, Aged 36 years,

Occupation Household Duties, R/o.Pratibhabharathi

Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

2. Macharla Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.Ramalingachari(late),

Aged about 14 years, Occupation Student,

R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru

Mandal, Srikakulam District, being minor rep. by his next

friend and Mother 1st appellant R/o.Pratibhabharathi

Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

3. Macharla Santhosh Siva Kumar, S/o.Ramalingachari(late),

Aged about 12 years, Occupation Student,

R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru

Mandal, Srikakulam District, being minor rep. by his next

friend and Mother 1st appellant R/o.Pratibhabharathi

Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

4. Macharla Lakshmi, W/o.Late Gangaraju, Hindu, aged 70

years, No Work, R/o.P.B.Nagar Colony, Murapaka Post,

Srikakulam District.

5. Macharla Kanchanamala, D/o.Late Gangaraju,

aged about 25 years, Household Duties,

R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru

Mandal, Srikakulam District. ... Appellants

And

1. Chagarlamudi Suresh Babu, S/o.Bhaskararao,

Owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 7 V 545, aged 40 years,

R/o.D.No.5-49/1, Nidamanuru Village, Vijayawada Post,

Krishna District.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Dwarakanagar,

Visakhapatnam. ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 02.01.2023

2023:APHC:21

2

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

2023:APHC:21

3

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

+ M.A.C.M.A.No.1445 of 2006

% 02.01.2023

Between:

1. Macharla Lakshmi Kanthamma,

W/o.Ramalingachari(late), Hindu, Aged 36 years,

Occupation Household Duties, R/o.Pratibhabharathi

Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

2. Macharla Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.Ramalingachari(late),

Aged about 14 years, Occupation Student,

R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru

Mandal, Srikakulam District, being minor rep. by his next

friend and Mother 1st appellant R/o.Pratibhabharathi

Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

3. Macharla Santhosh Siva Kumar, S/o.Ramalingachari(late),

Aged about 12 years, Occupation Student,

R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru

Mandal, Srikakulam District, being minor rep. by his next

friend and Mother 1st appellant R/o.Pratibhabharathi

Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

4. Macharla Lakshmi, W/o.Late Gangaraju, Hindu, aged 70

years, No Work, R/o.P.B.Nagar Colony, Murapaka Post,

Srikakulam District.

5. Macharla Kanchanamala, D/o.Late Gangaraju,

aged about 25 years, Household Duties,

R/o.Pratibhabharathi Colony, Murapaka Post, Laveru

Mandal, Srikakulam District. ... Appellants

And

1. Chagarlamudi Suresh Babu, S/o.Bhaskararao,

Owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 7 V 545, aged 40 years,

R/o.D.No.5-49/1, Nidamanuru Village, Vijayawada Post,

Krishna District.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Dwarakanagar,

Visakhapatnam. ... Respondents

2023:APHC:21

4

! Counsel for Appellants : Sri A.Ramarao

^ Counsel for 2nd Respondent : Sri G.Srinivasu

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

(2020) 11 SCC 356

2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)

(2003) 2 SCC 274

This Court made the following:

2023:APHC:21

5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1445 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been filed by

the appellants/claimants challenging the Judgment and Award

dated 16.02.2006 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam,

(hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.146 of

2001 whereby, the claimants have been awarded the

compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- directing the 2nd

respondent/Insurer to pay the awarded amount with running

interest at 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs of the

petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim

petition.

3. The factual context of the case, is as under:

(a) A 36 year old Ramalingachari was a Junior Assistant in

the Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj,

Srikakulam. At the time of his death, the deceased was drawing

2023:APHC:21

6

a monthly gross salary of Rs.4,875/-. On 04.09.2000 at about

9.00 p.m., the deceased was proceedings on his Scooter bearing

No.AHV 8929 towards his village Murapaka from Srikakulam

and when he reached near Koyyarallu junction, the offending

lorry bearing No.AP 7V 545 driven by its driver very rash and

negligent manner endangering the human life, and dashed

against the double bullock cart and later hit the deceased, as a

result, he received severe injuries and died instantaneously. The

matter was reported to the police alleging that the accident took

place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said

offending vehicle by its driver and based on the FIR lodged by

P.Nageswara Rao, a case in Crime No.157 of 2000 of Etcherla

Police Station, Srikakulam District, for the offences punishable

under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC was registered. After

investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against

the accused driver of the offending lorry for having committed

the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC.

b) The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the

sons, the 4th petitioner is the mother and the 5th petitioner is the

sister of the deceased – Ramalingachari. They filed the petition

claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- before the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam, on account of the

2023:APHC:21

7

death of the deceased-Ramalingachari in the said road traffic

accident.

c) Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1-owner of the offending

vehicle did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondentInsurance Company filed counter contending inter alia that the

insurer would take all relevant and necessary pleas at the

appropriate time. The petitioners are put to strict proof that the

driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the deceased due to

which, he died on the spot. Further, it was contended that the

petitioners are put to strict proof that the offending lorry bearing

No.AP 7V 545 is having a policy at the time of the accident.

Further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by

the petitioners in the claim petition is highly excessive and

exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

(d) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent

driving of the lorry by its driver of the 1st respondent?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover the

compensation, and, if so, what amount of compensation and

from, which of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

2023:APHC:21

8

(e) During the trial, in order to establish their claim, the wife

of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, P.Nageswara Rao, who

lodged the complaint intimating about the accident to the police,

was examined as P.W.2, and M.V.Ramanabhatlu, who was

working as Junior Assistant and who produced pay certificate

and service register of the deceased, was examined as P.W.3 and

Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Ex.B.1 were got marked on behalf of the 2nd

respondent by consent. No oral evidence was adduced and

except Ex.B.1, no documents were marked on behalf of the

respondents at the Tribunal.

(f) On appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to

A10 and Ex.B1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle bearing No.AP 7V 545 by its driver and passed

impugned Award granting compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- with

interest at 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs against the

2nd respondent.

(g) On appreciation of evidence, the following compensation

was awarded by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier „12‟.

S.No. Heads of compensation Amount of compensation awarded

1 Pecuniary compensation

as mentioned in the Award

Rs.2,500 x 12 x 12 =

Rs.3,60,000/-

Rs.3,60,000/- was awarded

towards pecuniary

compensation.

2023:APHC:21

9

2 Funeral expenses and

Transport

Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards

funeral expenses and transport

3 Consortium Rs.15,000/- was awarded

towards consortium in favour of

the 1st petitioner

Total Rs.3,80,000/-

(h) Aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the said award the

claimants, being the appellants preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would

submit that considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal

ought to have awarded higher compensation. It was submitted

that the income of the deceased was taken on the lower side

which ultimately resulted in granting lesser compensation. It is

further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken into

consideration the gross salary while awarding the compensation,

but the net salary drawn by the deceased was taken into

consideration. It was further argued that the learned Tribunal

committed an error in not awarding the compensation under

various conventional heads resulting in prejudice to the case of

the appellants. In support of the prayer for enhancement, the

learned counsel placed the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court

in the cases of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi. Therefore, the

figures and multiplier applied by the Tribunal were not justified

and warrant interference of this Court by enhancing the

2023:APHC:21

10

compensation on the account of loss of dependency, and future

prospects, by applying the multiplier „15‟ and loss of estate, loss

of consortium, and funeral expenses etc.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company would submit that, on proper appreciation of the

evidence on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded a just and

fair compensation to the appellants. He would further submit

that the figures/multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the

amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal were justified,

which called for no interference in the appeal.

6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for

determination in this appeal are:

“1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances

of the case or requires enhancement?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim

compensation under various conventional heads viz.,

loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses and

have made out any case for enhancement of

compensation ?”

7. POINT Nos.1 & 2: Considered the submissions of learned

counsels representing the parties, perused and assessed the

entire evidence including the exhibited documents. A perusal of

the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal has

framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to

2023:APHC:21

11

the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence had

categorically observed in Para-10 of the judgment that the

accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 7V 545 and has

answered in favour of the claimants and against the

respondents/Opponents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere

with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle bearing No.AP 7V 545 and further observed that, as per

Ex.B.1, the offending vehicle was covered with the Insurance

Policy by the date of the accident.

8. The Tribunal, while assessing the compensation payable to

the claimants, took into consideration the last pay certificateEx.A.9 and copy of the Service Register-Ex.A.10 of the deceased

which show that the monthly gross salary last drawn by the

deceased was Rs.4,875/-. By the date of the accident i.e.,

04.09.2000, he was working as a Junior Assistant in the Office

of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Srikakulam. A

perusal of Ex.A.10-copy of the service register, would show that

the date of birth of the deceased is 01.06.1964 and therefore, by

2023:APHC:21

12

the date of death of the deceased, he was aged about 36 years 3

months. Since the deceased was a salaried employee, and he

was between the age group of 36 to 40 years, an addition of 50%

of his actual salary is added towards future prospects for

assessment of his income as per the guidelines laid down in

Pranay Sethi’s case. The Tribunal committed an error in not

taking the gross salary of the deceased and calculated on the

basis of net salary of Rs.2,500/-.

9. The decision rendered in National Insurance Company

Vs. Birender1, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has observed

in para-19, as follows:

“19. Reverting to the determination of compensation

amount, it is noticed that the Tribunal proceeded to

determine the compensation amount on the basis of net

salary drawn by the deceased for the relevant period as

Rs.16,918/- per month, while taking note of the fact

that her gross salary was Rs.23,123/- per month

(presumably below taxable income). Concededly, any

deduction from the gross salary other than tax amount

cannot be reckoned. In that, the actual salary less tax

amount ought to have been taken into consideration by

the Tribunal for determining the compensation amount,

in light of the dictum of the Constitution Bench of this

court in paragraph 59.3 of Pranay Sethi (supra).”

10. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision of

National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi2, wherein at

Para 59.3, it was held as follows:

1

 (2020) 11 SCC 356

2

2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

2023:APHC:21

13

“While determining the income, an addition of 50% of

actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future

prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and

was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The

addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased

was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was

between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be

15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less

tax.”

11. In view of the principles laid down in Birender and Pranay

Sethi cases (supra), the Tribunal has to take the actual (gross

salary less tax) of the deceased into consideration for

determining the compensation amount.

12. Undisputedly, the deceased was working as a Junior

Assistant at the time of his death. He was a permanent employee

in Panchayat Raj Department. He was between the age group of

36 to 40 years. Therefore, 50% of his actual income has to be

added towards future prospects for determination of his income,

pursuant to the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the

case of Pranay Sethi (vide Paragraph 59.3) cited supra.

13. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation3, in Para 9 held as follows:

9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the

claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :

(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the

(c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by

3

 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

2023:APHC:21

14

the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i)

additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;

(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living

expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied

with reference of the age of the deceased. If these

determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and

consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for

detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance

companies to settle accident claims without delay.

14. The Tribunal committed an error in making the deductions

for the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Evidently,

the deceased was survived by his wife, two children (sons),

mother and sister. Therefore, the number of his dependent

family members was „5‟. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla

Verma’s case (supra) has held that the deduction towards

personal and living expenses should be 1/4th. Observation of the

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), is as under.

“14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made

towards personal and living expenses is calculated on

the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the

general practice is to apply standardized deductions.

Having considered several subsequent decisions of this

court, we are of the view that where the deceased was

married, the deduction towards personal and living

expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)

where the number of dependent family members is 2 to

3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant

family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where

the number of dependant family members exceed six.”

15. As per the above decision, the actual salary should be read

as actual salary less tax. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have

2023:APHC:21

15

taken into consideration the actual salary by applying the

multiplier as per Sarla Verma’s case.

16. As such, 1/4th of his income for personal and living

expenses has to be deducted, since the number of dependent

family members was „5‟. The Tribunal should have deducted

1/4th of his income for personal and living expenses.

17. As per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla

Verma (supra) the loss of dependency is thus re-assessed as

under.

21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should

be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared

by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and

Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for

the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by

one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30

years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then

reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for

51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65

years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

18. The monthly gross income as per his Last Pay

Certificate/Exs.A.6 and A.9 issued by Deputy Executive

Engineer, is Rs.4,875/-. Thus, the annual income would be

Rs.58,500/-. After adding 50% towards future prospects for

assessment of his income, as per the decision of the Apex Court

in Pranay Sethi (supra), it would be Rs.87,750/- (Rs.58,500 +

Rs.29,250).

2023:APHC:21

16

19. As per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), after deducting 1/4th of

the said amount for personal and living expenses of the

deceased, his annual income would be Rs.65,812.50 ps

(Rs.87,750 – Rs.21,937.50 ps). As per the judgment of the

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier to be

used should be as mentioned in Column No.4 of the table which

starts an operative multiplier of „18‟ ( for the age group of 36 to

40 years, the Multiplier is „15‟ ). Since the age of the deceased is

36 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier applicable is

„15‟. Having applied the said multiplier of „15‟, loss of

dependency would be Rs.9,87,187.50 ps (Rs.65,812.50 ps x 15),

which is rounded to Rs.9,87,187/-. Thus, Rs.9,87,187/- would

be a substantive dependency to which the claimants are entitled

to. This Court finds that the Tribunal has not awarded

appropriate compensation towards future prospects of loss of

dependency. A reading of the Tribunal‟s award, makes it appear

that the Tribunal‟s approach does not accord at all with current

judicial opinion.

20. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of

Rs.9,87,187/- under the head of loss of dependency.

21. In Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the Constitution Bench

held in death cases that the compensation would be awarded

2023:APHC:21

17

only under three conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of

consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-,

Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.

Loss of Estate:

22. This Court is of the view to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-

under the said head of loss of estate, as per Pranay Sethi’s case

(supra).

Funeral Expenses:

23. This Court is of the view to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-

under the said head of funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi’s

case (supra).

Loss of Consortium:

24. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India explained the concept

of consortium in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.

Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others,4 and held that the

consortium is a compendious term, which encompasses

“spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, as well as “filial

consortium”. Observation of the Court in Paragraphs 21, 22 and

23 is as follows:

"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi

dealt with the various heads under which compensation is

to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss

4

 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)

2023:APHC:21

18

of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a

compendious term which encompasses "spousal

consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium".

The right to consortium would include the company, care,

help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the

deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a

spouse, it would include sexual relations with the

deceased spouse.

21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights

pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which

allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of

"company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the

other in every conjugal relation."

21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the

premature death of a parent, MAC.App 77/2019 for loss of

"parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline,

guidance and training." 21.3 Filial consortium is the right

of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental

death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child

causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of

the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose

their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for

their love, affection, companionship and their role in the

family unit.

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing

norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.

Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the

value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic

value of the compensation awarded in the case of the

death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents

to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on

the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is

a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and

companionship of the deceased child.

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed

at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases

of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their

minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are

entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head

of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to

children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents

under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded

compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity

with respect to the principles on which compensation could

be awarded on loss of filial consortium."

2023:APHC:21

19

25. Pursuant to the above decision in Nanu Ram’s case

(supra), each of the two children of the deceased i.e., appellants

2 and 3 are entitled to the parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/-

each for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society,

discipline, guidance, and training, instead of compensation

under the head of „loss of love and affection‟. The 1st appellant,

being his wife and the 4th appellant being his mother are also

entitled to the consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that the appellants 1 to 4 are entitled to a

sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of the consortium.

26. The said amounts awarded for loss of consortium will be

as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra) as recognized

only three conventional heads under which the compensation

can be awarded viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, and

funeral expenses. There is no justification to award

compensation for loss of love and affection as a separate head.

27. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court,

while elaborating the concept of „just compensation‟ observed as

under:

“Just compensation is adequate compensation which is

fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the

case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the

wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well

settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is

2023:APHC:21

20

not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of

profit.”

28. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

the judgments cited supra and the calculations made above, the

compensation payable to the appellants-claimants, is

re-assessed as under.

S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of

 compensation awarded

1. Loss of Dependency …… Rs. 9,87,187.00

2. Loss of Estate …… Rs. 15,000.00

3. Funeral Expenses …… Rs. 15,000.00

4. Loss of Consortium

To the wife, two

Children and mother

Of the deceased 40,000 x 4 …… Rs. 1,60,000.00

 ---------------------

Total …… Rs. 11,77,187.00

(-) Compensation awarded

By the Tribunal shown in

Para 3(g) ….. Rs. 3,80,000.00

 ---------------------

Enhanced amount …... Rs. 7,97,187.00

 ---------------------

29. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and

others5, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only

upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate

case, where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal-

5

 (2003) 2 SCC 274

2023:APHC:21

21

Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more

compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such an

award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than

that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the

Tribunal and Court to award “just compensation”, even if it is in

the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to

make an award by determining the amount of compensation

that should appear to be just and proper. The compensation as

awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the

facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable,

and the claimants are entitled to more compensation, as per the

decisions cited supra, though they might not have claimed the

same at the time of filing of the claim petition.

30. It is seen that, at the time of filing the claim petition as

well as the appeal, the 2nd & 3rd appellants were minors and

were represented by their mother/1st appellant as guardian.

Now, they would have attained the majority. As such, the 2nd &

3rd appellants can be directed to file appropriate petitions before

the Claims Tribunal to declare them as majors and after

declaring them as majors and discharging their mother/1st

appellant from guardianship, the 2nd & 3rd appellants are

2023:APHC:21

22

permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation

amount with accrued interest.

31. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is

of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants

interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,80,000/-

to Rs.11,77,187/-.

32. In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the

compensation from a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- to Rs.11,77,187/-

with interest @ 7.5% per annum and costs from the date of the

petition till the date of deposit, payable by the 1st & 2nd

respondents jointly and severally.

(ii) The respondents are directed to deposit the

compensation amount within two months from the date of this

judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against

them.

(iii) The appellants/claimants shall pay the requisite

Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and

above the compensation claimed.

(iv) The appellants 1 to 3 shall be entitled to an equal

share of compensation.

(v) The 1st appellant/1st claimant is permitted to

withdraw her share of compensation with accrued interest. The

2023:APHC:21

23

2nd & 3rd appellants/2nd & 3rd claimants are directed to file

appropriate petitions before the Claims Tribunal to declare them

as majors and after declaring them as majors and discharging

their mother/1st appellant from the guardianship, the 2nd & 3rd

appellants are permitted to withdraw their entire share of

compensation amount with accrued interest.

(vi) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands

modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions

as above.

(vii) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

 JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

Date: 02.01.2023

L.R.Copy to be marked

Mjl/*

2023:APHC:21

24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1445 of 2006

 02.01.2023

L.R.Copy to be marked

Mjl/*

2023:APHC:21