Andhra Pradesh High Court
MACMA/2981/2007 of TADI PARVATHI AND 3 OTHERS Vs G. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND 2 OTHERS on 21 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2981/2007 Between: 1. TADI PARVATHI AND 3 OTHERS, W/O APPA RAO HOUSE HOLD
APHC010559292007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2981/2007
Between:
1. TADI PARVATHI AND 3 OTHERS, W/O APPA RAO HOUSE HOLD
DUTIES
R/O
BURAGAM
VILLAGE,
KANCHILI
MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DIST.
2. TADI BALA KRISHNA, S/O LATE APPA RAO MINOR, RLEP.BY HIS
MOTHER-1ST PETITONER R/O BURAGAM VILLAGE, KANCHILI
MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DIST.
3. TADI
ANNAPOORNA,
W/O
LATE
SURAYANARAYANA
R/O
BURAGAM VILLAGE, KANCHILI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DIST.
4. AKULA LEELARANI, W/O RAM RAO HOUSE HOLD DUTIES R/O
BURAGAM VILLAGE, KANCHILI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DIST.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. G RAMACHANDRA RAO AND 2 OTHERS, S/O NARAYANA OWNER
OF LORRY AP 35 /T-1123 R/O DOOR.NO.8-16-1, BALAJI NAGAR, VIZIANAGARAM.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.BY ITS
DIVISIONAL
MANAGER,
G.T.ROAD,
OPP.
SURYA
MAHAL,
SRIKAKULAM.
3. A BABU RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN OWNER OF THE LORRY AP 35 / T
1123 R/O NEAR SRINIVASA TALKIES, NELLIMARLA VILLAGE AND
MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. N RAMA KRISHNA
2. A V K S PRASAD
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V.Act”) by the Appellants - Claimants against the Order and Decree dated 06.02.2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Srikakulam (for short “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No.75 of 2002 granting compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment, against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the Petitioners / Claimants, in brief, is as follows:
(a) The deceased – Tadi Apparao was employed as Line Inspector in Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited and was getting monthly salary of Rs.9,267/-. While so, on 03.02.2001 at about 01.00 p.m., while the deceased was proceedings on his scooter bearing No.AAS 3039 from Haripuram to his village Buragam, a lorry bearing No.AP 35 T 1123 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driver by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came and hit the scooter of the deceased, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and died on the spot. As such, the Petitioners, who are the wife, son, widowed mother and unmarried daughter of the deceased filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- from Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
(b) On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- against Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
4. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned counsel for the Appellants and Sri Gudi Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company. Appeal against Respondent No.1 is dismissed and none appeared for Respondent No.3.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant / Claimants mainly contend that though Ex.A.5 salary certificate of the deceased was filed to prove his income, the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had erroneously taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- and awarded a very meager compensation. Learned counsel would further submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the settled principles of law. Hence, prayed for enhancing the compensation to a reasonable sum by modifying the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company is in attendance.
7. Considered the submissions of both the learned counsels, perused the contentions raised before the Tribunal and assessed the entire evidence including the exhibited documents available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the Claimants relied upon Ex.A.5-Salary Certificate, which is said to have been issued by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operations, Tekkali. The said document would show that the deceased-Tadi Apparao was working as a Line Inspector in the said office and was drawing a gross salary of Rs.9,267.50 ps. However, admittedly, the Claimants did not examine any person connected with the concerned office to establish the genuineness and contents of Ex.A.5. The Tribunal, in the absence of such proof, declined to take Ex.A.5 into consideration and, having regard to the guidelines contained in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, treated the deceased as a non-earning person and fixed his monthly income at Rs.1,500/-.
9. In the considered view of this Court, though the Tribunal was justified in observing that Ex.A.5 had not been proved, the claim of the Petitioners regarding the avocation and income of the deceased cannot be discarded without affording a reasonable opportunity to them to establish the same. The issue of income is a vital factor in determining the loss of dependency, particularly when the Claimants specifically pleaded that the deceased was a salaried employee and produced a salary certificate purportedly issued by the competent authority.
10. The failure of the Claimants to examine the concerned official to prove Ex.A.5 is a curable defect. Since determination of just compensation is the paramount consideration in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claimants ought to be afforded an opportunity to establish the authenticity and contents of Ex.A.5 by examining the appropriate witness or by producing such other admissible evidence as may be permissible in law.
11. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion on the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.A.5 or on the actual income of the deceased. The said aspects are required to be determined by the learned Tribunal after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides. The Tribunal shall consider the evidence already available on record as well as the additional evidence, if any, adduced by the parties and thereafter determine the monthly income of the deceased and the compensation payable to the Claimants in accordance with law.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires to be remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration limited to the determination of the just and reasonable compensation payable to the Claimants.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal for fresh determination of the compensation payable to the Claimants. The Claimants shall be at liberty to adduce appropriate evidence, including by examining the competent official connected with the office of the deceased, to prove Ex.A.5-Salary Certificate. The Respondents shall also be given reasonable opportunity to contest such evidence. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall determine the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency and all other permissible heads of compensation and award just and reasonable compensation in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the evidence already on record and the additional evidence, if any, adduced by the parties. Since the accident was of the year 2001, the learned Tribunal is requested to conclude the entire exercise and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Both parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 29.07.2026. In view of the said direction, the learned Tribunal need not issue fresh notices to the parties. The Registry is directed to return the original record to the learned Tribunal forthwith. The learned District Judge concerned is directed to take necessary steps to secure the original record from the Registry through a special messenger, to avoid any further complications or delay in disposal of the matter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the genuineness of Ex.A.5, the actual income of the deceased or the quantum of compensation payable to the Claimants. All such issues are left open to be decided by the learned Tribunal independently, on the basis of the evidence and in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:22.07.2026 Dinesh
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2981 of 2007
DATE:22.07.2026
Dinesh