Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... vs C Satyavathi, W.Godavari Dist 5 Others on 10 October, 2025
1
APHC010465022017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1218/2017
Between:
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. E.GODAVARI DIST, REP.BY
ITS DIVIL.MANAGER, D.O, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. C SATYAVATHI W GODAVARI DIST 5 OTHERS, W/O.SATTIBABU,
AGED 27 YRS, R/O.THOKKIREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPURAM
MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT, KOVVUR PJCJC.
2. CHALLA NAGA SIRISHA, D/O.SATTIBABU, AGED 8 YRS, MINOR,
REP.BY RESP.NO.1 MOTHER.
3. CHALLA MANGARAJU, S/O.SATTIBABU, AGED 5 YRS, MINOR, REP.BY
RESP.NO.1 MOTHER.
4. CHALLA SUBBA LAKSHMI, W/O.SUBBARAO, AGED 52 YRS,
R/O.THOKKIREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPURAM MANDAL,
W.G.DISTRICT, KOVVUR PJCJC.
5. GERA HERAMS RATNA PRAVEEN, S/O.MOSES, AGED 34 YRS,
DRIVER OF AMBULANCE NO.AP-05-VJTR-7645, R/O.OPPOSITE BSNL
OFFICE, JANGAREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL,
W.G.DISTRICT., JANGAREDDIGUDEM PJCJC.
2
6. KANCHARLA PAVAN KUMAR, S/O.DURGARAO, AGED 42 YRS,
OWNER OF AMBULANCE NO.AP-05-VJTR-7645, R/O.D.NO. 4-73,
TIRUMALADEVIPETA, MADYAHAPURVARIGUDEM VILLAGE,
T.NARSAPURAM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT. (R-5 IS NOT NECESSARY)
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be
pleased toaggrieved by the orders passed by way of judgment and decree in
MVOP.No. 158 of 2015, dated 31.01.2017 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-
cum-IX Addl. District Judge's Court, West Godavari at Kovvur
IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 2368 OF 2017
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 stay
the execution of decree and judgment passed in MVOP.No. 158 of 2015, dated
31.01.2017 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-IX Addl. District Judge's
Court, West Godavari at Kovvur, and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. G HARAGOPAL
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1227/2017
Between:
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., E.G.DIST, REP.BY ITS
DIVIL.MANAGER, D.O, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. MUTTANABOYINA VENKATESULU W G DIST 4 OTHERS,
S/O.RAMARAO, AGED 42 YRS, R/O.THOKKIREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE,
3
GOPALAPURAM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT, KOVVUR PJCJC.
2. MUTTANABOYINA SOMARAJU, S/O.RAMARAO, AGED 37 YRS,
R/O.THOKKIREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPURAM MANDAL,
W.G.DISTRICT, KOVVUR PJCJC.
3. MUTTANABOYINA SATYANARAYANA, S/O.RAMARAO, AGED 32 YRS,
R/O.THOKKIREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE, GOPALAPURAM MANDAL,
W.G.DISTRICT, KOVVUR PJCJC.
4. GERA HERAMS RATNA PRAVEEN, S/O.MOSES, AGED 34 YRS,
DRIVER OF AMBULANCE NO.AP-05-VJTR-7645, R/O.OPPOSITE BSNL
OFFICE, JANGAREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL,
W.G.DISTRICT., JANGAREDDIGUDEM PJCJC.
5. KANCHARLA PAVAN KUMAR, S/O.DURGARAO, AGED 42 YRS,
OWNER OF AMBULANCE NO.AP-05-VJTR-7645, R/O.D.NO. 4-73,
TIRUMALADEVIPETA, MADYAHAPURVARIGUDEM VILLAGE,
T.NARSAPURAM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be
pleased toaggrieved by the orders passed by way of judgment and Decree in
M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015, dated 31.01.2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Addl. District Judge's Court, West Godavari at
Kovvur,
IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 2379 OF 2017
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 stay
the execution of decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No. 157 of 2015, dated
31.01.2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX
Addl. District Judge's Court, West Godavari at Kovvur, pending the final disposal
of the main appeal and pass
4
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. G HARAGOPAL
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO
The Court made the following:
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1218 and 1227 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. M.V.O.P.Nos.157 and 158 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge‟s Court, West Godavari at Kovvur (for short "the learned MACT") were filed by the legal representatives of one Muttanaboyina Prasad (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased No.1") and One Challa Sattibabu (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased No.2"), claiming compensation for the death of respective deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.08.2015.
2. Separate awards and decrees dated 31.01.2017 passed by the learned MACT, awarding compensation of Rs.4,82,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015 and Rs.11,99,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2015.
3. Before the learned MACT, the driver, the owner of the Ambulance bearing Registration No.AP 05 VJTR 7645 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are arrayed as Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the same order.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the liability imposed and quantum of compensation awarded, the Insurance Company filed the present appeals i.e. 6 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1227 and 1218 of 2017, now under consideration questioning the liability and compensation awarded.
5. Since the accident referred to in both cases and the contentious issues are substantially the same, barring quantification of compensation and as common arguments were advanced, common judgment.
6. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the learned MACT.
Factual Matrix common for both cases:
7(i). On 02.08.2015, deceased Nos.1 and 2, were returning from Gopalapuram to their Village Tokkireddygudem, West Godavari District on their motor cycle, at about 07:00 P.M., when they were near Peddagudem road on Gopalapuram by pass road, the offending vehicle driven by Respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle, whereby both the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Kovvur, where they were declared as dead.
(ii). The negligence of Respondent No.1 is the cause for the accident. There was no fault on the part of the deceased No.1 in riding the motor cycle.
Respondent No.2 and 3, being the owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are liable to compensate.
7
(iii). A case in Crime No.119 of 2015 was registered on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station and after necessary inquiry, charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle viz. Respondent No.1. Specific case of claimants in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015:
8. Deceased No.1 was aged about 25 years, a lorry driver by occupation, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Petitioners are brothers of the deceased and they are legal heirs and dependents of deceased No.1. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
Specific Case of claimants in M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2015:
9. Deceased No.2 was aged about 29 years, lorry driver by profession and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month apart from beta etc. The 1st claimant is the wife, 2nd claimant is the daughter, 3rd claimant is the son and 4th claimant is the mother of the deceased. They are legal heirs and dependents. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
Defence of Respondent No.3 Insurance Company:
10(i). The offending vehicle was insured under the policy covering the period from 12:00:01 A.M. on 30.06.2015 to 29.06.2016, 11:59:59 P.M. (date of accident 02.08.2015). The liability shall be in accordance with the policy conditions and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(ii). The valid and effective driving license for Respondent No.1 and a permit for the offending vehicle to run on the road etc. shall be shown. The negligence 8 of Respondent No.1 in occurrence of the accident shall be proved. Age, occupation and income of the respective deceased including the dependency of the claimants in each case shall be shown with strict proof.
(iii). The offending vehicle in question was given only temporary registration certificate which is valid for the period from 30.06.2015 to 29.07.2015 i.e. for a period of one month. Before the temporary registration expired, the vehicle is to be registered before the RTA, West Godavari, Eluru. The date of accident is
02.08.2015 i.e. beyond / more than one month after the temporary registration. Therefore, the vehicle should not have been plied on the road without registration. Hence, there is violation.
(iv). Further, respondent No.1 had a licence to drive only a non transport vehicle and a proper driving licence to drive the offending vehicle / ambulance was not there with the Respondent No.1. Hence, there is violation of conditions of policy. Therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation.
11. Issues settled by the learned MACT and evidence adduced in both cases is as follows:
Sl. Case No. Issues No.
1. M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015 1. Whether the accident, that occurred on 02.08.2015 at 07:00 P.M near Gopalapuram in which the deceased Muttanaboyina Prasad died is due to rash and negligent driving of Ambulance bearing No.AP 05 VJTR 7645 by 1st respondent?
9
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. To what relief?
2. M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2015 1. Whether the accident, that occurred on 02.08.2015 at 07:00 P.M. near Gopalapuram in which the deceased Muttanaboyina Prasad died is due to rash and negligent driving of Ambulance bearing No.AP 05 VJTR 7645 by 1st respondent?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. To what relief?
Evidence before the learned MACT:
12(i).M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015:
Description Remarks
Oral P.W.1: M. Somaraju Claimant No.2
evidence
P.W.2: B. Venkanna Lorry driver
P.W.3: V. Krishna Eye witness to accident
R.W.1: Y. Bhavannarayana A.O. in Respondent No.3
Insurance Company
R.W.2: K. Jhon Victor Senior Assistant in RTA
R.W.3: P. Raja Kiran Kumar Junior Assistant in RTA
Documentary Ex.A1: Attested copy of F.I.R. in
evidence Cr.No.119/2015 of Gopalapuram
Police Station.
Ex.A2:Attested copy of Inquest Marked on behalf of the Report. petitioner(s) Ex.A3:Attested copy of PME certificate.10
Ex.A4: Attested copy of Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No.119 of 2015.
Ex.A5: Original driving licence of deceased.
Ex.B1: True copy of policy issued by Respondent No.3 in favour of Marked on behalf of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3.
Ex.B2: Rough sketch of scene of offence.
Ex.X1: Authorisation given by employer of R.W.2 Ex.X2: Extract of driving licence Marked on behalf of third of Respondent No.1. parties.
Ex.X3: Authorisation given by employer of R.W.3.
Ex.X4: Extract of B register of vehicle of Respondent No.2.
12(ii). M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2015:
Description Remarks
Oral P.W.1: Ch. Satyavathi Claimant No.1
evidence
P.W.2: B. Venkanna Lorry driver
P.W.3:V. Krishna Eye witness to accident
R.W.1: Y. Bhavannarayana A.O. in Respondent No.3
Insurance Company
R.W.2: K. Jhon Victor Senior Assistant in RTA
R.W.3: P. Raja Kiran Kumar Junior Assistant in RTA
Documentary Ex.A1: Attested copy of F.I.R. in
evidence Cr.No.119/2015 of Gopalapuram
Police Station.
Ex.A2:Attested copy of Inquest Marked on behalf of the petitioner(s) Report.
Ex.A3:Attested copy of PME certificate.11
Ex.A4: Attested copy of Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No.119 of 2015.
Ex.A5: Original driving licence of deceased.
Ex.B1: True copy of policy issued by Respondent No.3 in favour of Marked on behalf of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3.
Ex.B2: Rough sketch of scene of offence.
Ex.X1: Authorisation given by employer of R.W.2 Ex.X2: Extract of driving licence Marked on behalf of third of Respondent No.1. parties.
Ex.X3: Authorisation given by employer of R.W.3.
Ex.X4: Extract of B register of vehicle of Respondent No.2.
Findings of the learned MACT:
13(i) On negligence:
(i). The accident is not in dispute. P.W.3-eye witness to the accident, deposed about the offending vehicle coming in the wrong side and hitting the motor cycle. Further, P.W.3 is cited as witness in the charge sheet. The driver of the offending vehicle did not file any written statement. No steps are taken to examine the Respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the evidence placed by the claimants is convincing to accept the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
13(ii). Absence of regular registration for the offending vehicle.
(i). Regular registration was obtained on 03.12.2015. 12
(ii). There is no reference to necessity of registration in the conditions of policy particularly in Ex.B1.
(iii). Further, Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act does not indicate the absence of registration as an exemption to avoid liability. On quantum:
In M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015
13(iii). By referring to the age of the deceased, the multiplier applicable is „16"
and personal deduction to the extent of 50%. While accepting the income of deceased No.1 at Rs.4,500/-, considering the extent of dependency of the claimants being brothers, the learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.4,82,000/-.In M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2015
13(iv). In respect of claim of deceased No.2, accepting the income at Rs.8,000/-
notionally per month, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, the learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.11,99,000/-.
Arguments in the appeals:
For the appellant-Insurance Company:
14(i). The learned MACT failed to see that as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act no motor vehicle shall be driven in any Public Place or in any other place without registration.13
(ii). The compensation awarded under the heads of non-pecuniary damages, funeral expenditure etc. are on the higher side and not in accordance with the guidance in Sarala Verma‟s case.
(iii). Compensation awarded in both cases is excessive, more so where there is no dependency of the brothers of the deceased in respect of the claim in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015.
For the claimants:
15(i). The claimants are third parties. The vehicle was registered when it was purchased. Although the temporary registration was expired, regular registration has taken place and the vehicle was registered subsequently.
(ii). The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in both the cases is just and reasonable and requires enhancement.
(iii). There are no grounds to interfere with the liability. However, the compensation awarded can be enhanced in these appeals.
16. Heard both sides extensively. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
17. Now the points that arise for determination in these appeals are:
(1) Whether the liability imposed on the Insurance Company / appellant, ignoring the expiry of the temporary registration of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 05 VJTR 7645 and the violations thereof, is sustainable in law and on facts?14
(2) Whether the compensation of Rs.4,82,000/- awarded in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015 is just and reasonable or requires any modification? (3) Whether the compensation of Rs.11,99,000/- awarded in M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2015 is just and reasonable or requires any modification? (4) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.1227 of 2017? (5) What is the result of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.1218 of 2017?
Point No.1:
Liability of the Insurance Company:
Precedential Guidance:
18. In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara1, the Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 39, 43, 149 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was a case where respondent / complainant purchased a car and got it insured with the appellant Insurance Company. At the time of insurance, the vehicle was temporarily registered. After the expiry of registration, the complainant took the vehicle out for his work related travel and it was parked outside a guest house in another city. During the night stay, the vehicle was stolen and a claim was made before the District Forum. The claim was dismissed by the District Forum. In appeal, the State Commission allowed the claim in favour of the complainant. The Insurance Company filed a 1 (2021) 14 SCC 519 15 revision before the National Commission and the same was dismissed and the matter went up to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
19. The Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the scope of liability of the Insurance Company with reference to the facts in the case as well as the earlier observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others2 and also in Naveen Kumar vs. National Insurance Company Limited3, the observations in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, made in paragraph Nos.10 to 14 are as follows:
10. The learned Amicus Curie, on the other hand, urged that this Court should not disturb the findings of the State Commission or NCDRC. It was argued by the learned counsel that the judgment in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 43] pertained to claim for compensation for a damaged vehicle on account of accident, and not on account of theft of a vehicle, and was thus not applicable to the present case. She urged that in the present case, it could not be said that the policy holder's vehicle was an unregistered one; rather a temporary number had been assigned to it, but a few days after its expiry, the theft occurred. In the given circumstances, the preclusion of liability, in the manner expressed in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 43] by this Court, was inapplicable.
11. What is discernible from the above narration of facts, is that the policy holder had purchased a new Bolero which had a temporary registration. That registration lapsed on 19-7-2011. The respondent complainant never alleged or proved that he applied for a permanent registration, or sought extension of the temporary registration beyond 19-7-2011. He travelled outside his residence, to Jodhpur, in his car, and stayed overnight in a guest house. In the morning of 28-7-2011, he 2 (2014) 9 SCC 324 3 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1738 16 discovered that the car had been stolen, when parked outside the guest house premises in Jodhpur.
12. In Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 43], the claim was in the context of an accident, involving a vehicle, the temporary registration of which had expired. This Court held that the insurer was not liable, and observed that : (SCC p. 328, paras 11-12) "11. A bare perusal of Section 39 shows that no person shall drive the motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by the registering authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to Section 43, the owner of the vehicle may apply to the registering authority for temporary registration and a temporary registration mark. If such temporary registration is granted by the authority, the same shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month. The proviso to Section 43 clarified that the period of one month may be extended for such a further period by the registering authority only in a case where a temporary registration is granted in respect of chassis to which body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner.
12. Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of the vehicle in question, which had expired on 11-1-
2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2-2-2006 when the vehicle was without any registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11-1-2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle, either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract."
13. In Naveen Kumar [Naveen Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1738] , NCDRC decided a reference Naveen 17 Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Naveen Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1739] , to its Bench, and held that : (Naveen Kumar case [Naveen Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1738] , SCC OnLine NCDRC para 10) "10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the reference is answered in the following terms:
(i) If a vehicle without a valid registration is or has been used/driven on a public place or any other place that would constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance even if the vehicle is not being driven at the time it is stolen or is damaged.
(ii) If a vehicle without a valid registration is used/driven on a public place or any other place, it would constitute a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy even if the owner of the vehicle has applied for the issuance of a registration in terms of Section 41 of the Act before expiry of the temporary registration, but the regular registration has not been issued."
14. In the present case, the temporary registration of the respondent's vehicle had expired on 28-7-2011. Not only was the vehicle driven, but also taken to another city, where it was stationed overnight in a place other than the respondent's premises. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had applied for registration or that he was awaiting registration. In these circumstances, the ratio of Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 43] applies, in the opinion of this Court. That Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 43] was in the context of an accident, is immaterial. Despite this, the respondent plied his vehicle and took it to Jodhpur, where the theft took place. It is of no consequence, that the car was not plying on the road, when it was stolen; the material fact is that concededly, it was driven to the place from where it was stolen, after the expiry of temporary registration. But for its theft, the respondent would have driven back the vehicle. What is important is this Court's opinion of the law, that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. Therefore, on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation 18 of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 43] , entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy.
Analysis:
20. The facts in the present case and applicability of the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (1 Supra) are:
(i) It was a case of claim between the insurer and the insured.
(ii) The case before this Court is a claim by the third party.
(iii) The claim in the case referred was for the benefit of the insured.
(iv) The claim in the present case is not only for the benefit of the insured but also third party. Insurance Policy obtained is for the benefit of third parties, as per the statutory mandate that a vehicle shall not run without insurance.
21. There is no apparent conflict between Sections 39 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but from the point of view of their intended purposes, the registration contemplated under Section 39 is for identification of the vehicle and the insurance obtained is for the purpose of indemnifying the owner for self claims as well as well as third party claims.
22. The statutory mandate requires compulsory third-party insurance for running a vehicle and it is an offence if not opting insurance. Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as follows:
19
196. Driving uninsured vehicle: Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 146 shall be punishable [for the first offence] with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine [of two thousand rupees,], or with both [and for a subsequent offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine of four thousand rupees, or with both.].
23. The consequence of running a vehicle without registration under Section 192, is a breach for which fine is contemplated. Whereas, the provisions under Section 196 contemplate punishment for the first offense itself. The necessity of third party insurance is aimed at social welfare as well as the social security measure in case of third party risks. In the present case, the duty of care on the part of the owner of the vehicle with reference to obtaining third party insurance is complied with and it is not the case that the period of insurance covered by the policy issued is expired. It is only the registration expired. It is to be seen that, the registration lapse is also a breach and the same will amounts to a fundamental breach, in terms of the observation of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (1 Supra).
24. Similarly, the observations in respect of absence of permit and inflexion thereof give the right to the Insurance Company to take the defence of fundamental breach in terms of Section 149(2), as observed in Pareed Pillai vs. 20 Oriental Insurance Company Limited4 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Challa Upendra Rao and Others5. But absence of permit is a factor is to be viewed distinctly from absence of registration.
25. The lead that can be drawn from the observation of Hon‟ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (1 Supra) case vide para 14 is that, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents applied for registration or that they were awaiting registration. It was a case where the vehicle in question was stolen and a claim was made by the insured against the insurer in respect of theft. However, the context of case of accident was also considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court with reference to the Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others case (2 supra) but it was also a case between the insured and the insurer as to damage to the vehicle. It was not a case of a third party claim. The principle underlying is whether the breach would give rise to avoid liability. Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act like Section 43 and subsequent registration are noted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para No.14 of the judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (1 Supra).
26. In the present case, there was subsequent registration of the vehicle which can be seen from the observations in the impugned judgment and also the evidence vide Ex.X4.
42018 SCC OnLine Ker 3543 5 (2004) 8SCC 517 21
27. It is also relevant to note that, even in respect of want of fitness certificate etc. contemplated under section 66, Section 66(3) provides that the embargo contemplated under Section 66(1) has some exceptions. Section 66(3)(d) covers the exemption in respect of ambulances. In the case on hand before this Court, the offending vehicle is an ambulance. The claimants are third parties. Nothing is elicited as to whether any application for registration was made and pending during the interregnum period. But it is relevant to note that the temporary registration expired on 29.07.2015 and the accident taken place on 02.08.2015 and the regular registration of vehicle was effected on 03.12.2015 vide Ex.X4. Insurance Policy under Ex.B1 is covering the period from 30.06.2015 12:00:01 A.M to 29.06.2016 11:59:59 P.M.
28. The learned MACT imposed the liability jointly and severally on both the respondents i.e. the owner and the Insurance Company. The reasoning of the learned MACT for imposing the liability on the Insurance Company is that as per evidence of R.W.3 to run an ambulance no permit is required and the ambulance is LMV. The driving licence possessed by the respondent No.1 is sufficient to drive the ambulance. By the date of accident, temporary registration was obtained by respondent No.2 although the same was expired and regular registration was obtained thereafter under Section 149(2) there is no reference about the registration of the vehicle as a defence to avoid the liability. Even Ex.B1 does not contain such condition. Therefore, it is not possible to accept 22 that there is a condition in the policy exempting the Insurance Company from liability on the ground of registration.
29. Factual justification alone addressed by the learned MACT. The mandate to obtain insurance, making it statutory affair, has a social purpose and such mandate has been complied with. The mandate of registration is also important one and its violation is having some consequences. Upon juxtaposition of the importance of both registration and obtaining of insurance and on visualization of the purposes for which both provisions are there, particularly from the point of view of the third party, this Court is of the humble view that it is a fit case to adopt the policy of „pay and recovery‟ instead of total exemption of the Insurance Company from liability.
30. When the statute itself provides scope for registration after expiry of temporary registration and such registration was effected, putting a third party to denial of remedy does not work in achieving the legislative intendment.
31. Fitness to run the vehicle on road is different from having a fitness certificate to run the vehicle on the road. Having fitness certificate is different from having a registration certificate. Having temporary registration and subsequently having permanent registration is a saving grace in the present case. The case in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sushil Kumar Godara (1 supra) and Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company 23 Limited and Others (2 supra) are pertaining to the claim inter se insured and insurer with reference to the Consumer Protection Act.
32. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Challa Upendra Rao and Others (5 supra) decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (4 supra) decided by the Kerala High Court with reference to fitness certificate.
Violation as to Driving Licence:
33. The defence as to want of transport endorsement does not merit any consideration in the context of judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The legal position as to a person holding of non-transport category driving licence of „Light Motor Vehicle‟ driving transport vehicle has been addressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 6 [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited7 [Mukund Dewangan(2017)].
34. Further, the reference made on the point whether "a person holding a licence for a „Light Motor Vehicle‟ class non transport can drive a „Transport Vehicle‟ without a specific endorsement, provided the „Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)‟ of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kgs?" is answered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and 6 (2016) 4 SCC 298 7 (2019) 12 SCC 816 24 Others8 at length and the observation are made under the caption of conclusions are as follows:
131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:--
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a „Transport Vehicle‟ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the „Transport Vehicle‟ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a „Transport Vehicle,‟ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving „transport vehicles‟ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. „medium goods vehicle‟, „medium passenger vehicle‟, „heavy goods vehicle‟ and „heavy passenger vehicle‟. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.
35. It is relevant to note that the evidence relating to the unladen weight of the vehicle in question is not placed by the Insurance Company. Further, if a person driving a transport category vehicle with non-transport endorsement, where the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kgs, it will not entitle the 8 2024 SCC Online SC 3183 25 Insurance Company to claim exoneration from the liability is the settled legal proposition, as per the Judgments referred above i.e. Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [Mukund Dewangan(2017)] and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others.
36. In view of the discussion made above, with reference to the factual matrix in the case and the precedential guidance, this Court finds that the liability imposed on Insurance Company is proper. However, it is fit to be modified as to the pay and recovery. The Insurance Company shall pay and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The point framed is answered accordingly.
Point Nos.2 and 3:
Quantum on both cases:
Precedential guidance:-
a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation:
37(i). Hon‟ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.9 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier 9 2009 (6) SCC 121 26 mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following:
1. Age of the deceased.
2. Income of the deceased.
3. Number of dependents.
(ii). Hon‟ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are:
Step No.1:
Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased.
Step No.2:
Ascertaining Multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased. This shall be as per the table provided in judgment itself.
Step No.3:
Calculation of the compensation.
Final Step:
After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised.27
b) Adding of future prospects:
38(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 10 case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years.
(ii). The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon‟ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi's case.
c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium:
39. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others 11, Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the 10 2017(16) SCC 680 11 (2018) 18 SCC 130 28 heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium.
d) Just Compensation:
40. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others12, 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 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.
e) Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are otherwise entitled:-
41. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court holding 12 (2013) 9 SCC 54 29 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 Others13, 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.14 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 Others15 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
13
(2003) 2 SCC 274 14 2020 (04) SCC 413 15 (2019) 2 SCC 192 30 "5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award "just compensation". The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.
A "just compensation" is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation."
42. In respect of M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015, the income of the deceased, adopted at Rs.4,500/- per month, when seen with reference to his age, socio- economic circumstances from which the deceased hails and the bachelor status of the deceased, is found justified.
43. It is also relevant to note that the claimants are the brothers and total dependency factor on the Income of the deceased may not be there for them.
44. P.W.1 stated that due to sudden death of the deceased, they lost the love and affection and moral support of the deceased and they are suffering mental agony.
31
45. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another16, the point considered was, whether a brother of a person who is killed in a motor vehicle accident can claim compensation in a proceeding instituted before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and observed that the Court should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon bread winner of the family. If the bread winner is killed on account of motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation. It was a case where a „14‟ years old boy died in a motor vehicle accident and the brothers of the deceased instituted a petition for compensation. The compensation awarded was questioned. In that scenario, the above observations are made with reference to Fatal Accidents Act etc.
46. In a case between The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dhamodhara Pandian17, while addressing an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the principles relating to entitlement of legal representatives to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, even if they are not financially dependent on the deceased has been considered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras vide para Nos.11 to 14, after referring to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai 16 1987 Supreme (SC) 522 17 2025 Supreme (Online) (Mad) 55911 32 Prabhatbhai and another case mentioned above, the observations in para 11 to 14 are as follows:
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Birender and others reported in (2020)11 Supreme Court Cases 356, has specifically held that all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased can move application for compensation and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:
"12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus:
"9. In terms of clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said subsection makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.33
10. .....The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. Under Section 2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child."34
13. In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation". The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning.
14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. .......
12. A learned Judge of this Court in K.Sivakumar Vs. R.Muthu Kumar and Others reported in 2022(2) TN MAC 403 after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, has held that there is no iota of doubt that the legal representatives can maintain the claim under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and so, the issue as to whether the brother of 35 the deceased can maintain a claim and whether he is entitled for compensation is answered in favour of the appellants/claimants.
13. As already pointed out, in the case on hand, the first claimant being the brother of the deceased along with his wife and children have laid the above application claiming compensation for the death of his brother Lakshmana Kumar. Considering the above and the legal position above referred, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under the loss of dependency and others heads."
11. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jithendra kumar and another Vs. Sanjay Prasad and another in Civil Appeal No.7199 of 2025, dated 22.05.2025, has specifically held that the legal representatives, including married and earning sons and daughters, are entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act irrespective of financial dependency on the deceased and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder :
13.In our considered opinion, the view on this issue cannot be faulted. The exposition of law in Birender (Supra) is clear, wherein it was observed as under:
"14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only."
14.Such exposition came to be followed by this Court in Seema Rani and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 6 , wherein 36 it was observed that the application for compensation, even by married sons and daughters, must be considered, irrespective of whether they are fully dependant or not. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the claimant-appellant(s) became partner in the consultancy firm run by the deceased. Moreover, it is not in dispute that that the Flour Mill being run by the deceased, is still being run by the claimant-appellant(s). In such a factual circumstance, it cannot be said that the claimant-appellant(s) were financially dependent upon the deceased.
47. In a judgment, the High Court of Madras referred to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Jithendra Kumar and another vs. sanjay Prasad and another in Civil Appeal No.7199 of 2025 dated 22.05.2025, with regard to the entitlement of legal representatives, including married and earning sons and daughters. In the said case, High Court of Madras positively held entitlement of brothers for compensation and approved awarding of compensation by the learned MACT by applying the principles in Sarla Verma‟s and Pranay Sethi‟s etc. cases. Therefore, the contention of Insurance Company found not tenable.
48. The other argument of the Insurance Company is that the income of the deceased adopted is excessive. When the same is considered with reference to the year of accident 2015. The counter argument of the claimants is that future prospects are not added. Since there is no apparent basis for accepting the income adopted by the learned MACT which is the notional basis, if the same is 37 fit to be considered as excessive the argument of the claimants that future prospects are not added required to be answered.
49. The income adopted by the learned MACT in respect of both claimants if taken as inclusive of future prospects, the grievance of the Insurance Company as well as the claimants would get addressed. Therefore, the income adopted is considered as inclusive of future prospects in the factual scenario of the cases before this Court.
50. Upon considering entire case and contentions, the entitlement of claimants in both cases for compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is concluded as follows:
Details of entitlement of claimants in respect of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and relevant aspects as to quantification of compensation:
Sl. Head Deceased No.1 Deceased No.2
(Muttanaboyina Prasad) (Challa Sattibabu)
N0. in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015 / in M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2014 /
M.A.C.M.A.No.1227 of 2017 M.A.C.M.A.No.1218 of 2017
Adopted by the Accepted by Granted by the Fixed by this
learned MACT this Court learned MACT Court
1. Income of the Rs.27,000/- Rs.27,000/- Rs.64,000/- Rs.64,000/-
deceased
2. Multiplier 16 16 16 16
applied is
3. Calculation Rs.27,000/- x 16 Rs.27,000/- x Rs.64,000/-x16= Rs.64,000/-x16=
=Rs.4,32,000/- 16= Rs.10,24,000/- Rs.10,24,000/-
Rs.4,32,000/-
38
4. Loss of Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.10,24,000/- Rs.10,24,000/-
dependency /
financial loss
5. Non Rs.25,000/- -Nil- -Nil-
pecuniary
damages
Rs.1,50,000/-
Loss of -Nil- -Nil- Rs.1,60,000/-
consortium @ 40,000/- to each
claimant
6. Loss of -Nil- Rs.15,000/- -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
Estate
7. Funeral Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Expenditure (Including (Including
transportation) transportation)
Total Rs.4,82,000/- Rs.4,62,000/- Rs.11,99,000/- Rs.12,14,000/-
51. For the aforesaid reasons stated, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered concluding that the claimants in respect of deceased No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015 are entitled for compensation at Rs.4,62,000/- and the claimants in respect of deceased No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2015 are entitled for compensation at Rs.12,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Point Nos.4 and 5:
52. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1 to 3, Point Nos.4 and 5 are answered as follows:
In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1227 of 2017
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2015 at Rs.4,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is 39 modified to Rs.4,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) The compensation amount shall be equally apportioned among all the claimants.
(iv) The respondents before the learned MACT are jointly and severally liable. However, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount on payment from owner of the offending vehicle viz.
Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT.
(v) Claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once on deposit.
(vi) Time for deposit is two months.
M.A.C.M.A.No.1218 of 2017:
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) Compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.158 of
2015 at Rs.11,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.12,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) Claimant No.1 / the mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.4,85,600/- with proportionate interest and total costs.
(iv) Claimant No.2 / the daughter of the deceased is entitled for Rs.2,42,800/- with proportionate interest.
40
(v) Claimant No.3 / the son of the deceased is entitled for Rs.2,42,800/-
with proportionate interest.
(vi) Claimant No.4 / the mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.2,42,800/- with proportionate interest.
(vii) Claimants are liable to pay the Court fee, if any, for the enhanced part of the compensation, before the learned MACT.
(viii) Respondents before the learned MACT are jointly and severally liable. However, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount on payment from owner of the offending vehicle viz. Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT.
(ix) Claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once on deposit.
(x) Time for deposit is two months.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.
____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date:10th, October, 2025 Note:
L.R. copy to be marked.
B/o.
Knr 41 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1218 & 1227 of 2017 October, 2025 Knr 42