Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yedida Chinnari vs Alluri Venkata Rama Raju on 8 May, 2023
1
CMR, J. & VGKR, J.
MACMA No.405 of 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.405 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
This appeal is directed against the order passed in
M.V.O.P. No.400 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Eluru, (for short, "the Tribunal), whereby a sum of
Rs.26,94,800/- was awarded towards compensation, as
against the claimed amount of Rs.75,00,000/-.
2) The appellants, who are claimants in the said M.V.O.P.
No.400 of 2016, are aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation that was granted to them. Therefore, this
appeal has been filed by them seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount.
3) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the 4th respondent Insurance Company.
4) The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased
Koteswara Rao. The deceased Koteswara Rao met with an
CMR, J. & VGKR, J.
MACMA No.405 of 2022
accident and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the
said accident. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing
Registration No.AP-16-Y-3369, the appellants, who are his
legal representatives, laid the claim for a sum of
Rs.75,00,000/- towards compensation.
5) Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the lorry by its driver and that the victim, who
sustained injuries in the said accident, succumbed to the said
injuries.
6) The claimants have taken a plea before the Tribunal that
the deceased was a Mason and was also a builder and also
doing fly ash brick business. The Tribunal found on
appreciation of evidence on record that was adduced by the
claimants that there was no evidence to substantiate the plea
of the claimants that the deceased was a builder. The
Tribunal also found that there is no evidence on record to
prove his actual earnings on the said brick business and also
as a Mason. However, in view of the fact that was established
CMR, J. & VGKR, J.
MACMA No.405 of 2022
before the Tribunal that the deceased was a Mason during his
life time and that there is a license standing in his name to do
the brick business, the Tribunal in total notionally fixed his
income at Rs.50,000/- per annum.
7) Upon re-appraising the said evidence on record, we do
not find any infirmity in the said findings arrived at by the
Tribunal. Except taking a bald plea that the deceased was a
builder involved in construction activity, no evidence
whatsoever was adduced to substantiate the said plea.
Therefore, it cannot be held that the deceased was a builder
involved in construction activity and was earning on it.
However, there is some evidence on record to show that the
deceased was holding license to do fly ash brick industry
business. However, there is no evidence on record to arrive at
his actual earnings on the said brick industry business. It is
also on record that he was working as a Mason during his
lifetime. But, there is no evidence on record to prove his
actual earnings on the said Masonry work also. So,
considering the evidence on record that the deceased was
doing Masonry work during his lifetime and that licence to do
CMR, J. & VGKR, J.
MACMA No.405 of 2022
fly ash brick industry business stands in his name, the
Tribunal rightly arrived at a conclusion that his average
income can be fixed at Rs.50,000/- per annum. Therefore, as
the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of his death,
the relevant multiplier 16 is applied and accordingly, after
deducting 2/3rd amount from the annual income of the
deceased towards personal expenses, the Tribunal has
ultimately awarded a sum of Rs.24,12,800/- as compensation
towards loss of dependency. In total, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.26,94,800/-.
8) The appellants have also claimed compensation on the
ground of loss of agricultural income. They have produced a
Pattadar passbook standing in the name of the deceased
showing that he owns a land of Ac.2.00 cents. The said land
would be intact even after his demise. The appellants being
his legal representatives would be enjoying the said land. So,
no loss would be accrued to them towards agricultural income.
Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation
on that ground.
CMR, J. & VGKR, J.
MACMA No.405 of 2022
9) We are of the considered view that the said amount of
compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable. The appellants are not entitled to any
enhancement of the compensation.
10) Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed
confirming the impugned order of the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if
any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_____________________________________
JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Date:08.05.2023.
cs
