The Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, has dismissed an appeal filed by the insurance company challenging a compensation award in a fatal motor accident case. Upholding the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kadapa, the Court confirmed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver and enhanced the compensation from ₹25.50 lakh to ₹33.78 lakh with interest at 9% per annum.
Background:
The deceased, Allapuraju Kiran Kumar, a 25-year-old police department driver, died in a road accident on 13.06.2015 while on election duty. The police jeep he was driving collided with a Tata Magic Auto (No. AP 26TV 0809) near Nellore Palem on the Nellore-Mumbai highway. He succumbed to injuries while being transported for medical treatment. An FIR (Cr. No. 73/2012) under Sections 337, 338, and 304A IPC was registered against the auto driver.
A claim petition was filed by the deceased’s wife under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking ₹30.50 lakh. The Tribunal awarded ₹25.50 lakh with 6% interest against the owner and insurer of the auto. Aggrieved, the insurer appealed.
Arguments:
Appellant (Insurance Company):
- Cited the inquest and final police reports (Exs.A2 and X5) which attributed fault to the deceased.
- Argued that these reports outweighed eyewitness testimony.
- Cited National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmika [(2018) 9 SCC 801], claiming that if the deceased was negligent, no compensation under Section 166 is payable.
Claimants:
- Relied on direct eyewitness accounts (PWs 3 and 4), both police personnel travelling in the jeep.
- Argued that the reports relied on by the insurer were not conclusive and cannot override eyewitness testimony.
- Cited National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Emani Venkata Archana v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. to seek enhancement of compensation including future prospects and higher interest.
Court’s Observations:
- Eyewitnesses PWs 3 and 4, who were inmates of the police jeep, were found to be reliable.
- The High Court noted: “When accident is admitted and there are direct eyewitnesses to the incident, they particularly being police officers, there is no reason to disbelieve their statements.”
- Held that mere reliance on inquest and final police reports without examining witnesses from the auto (LWs 4 and 5) was insufficient to rebut the claim.
- Distinguished Ashalata Bhowmika as inapplicable since the present case involved two vehicles.
Enhanced Compensation:
The Court, applying multiplier method and following Pranay Sethi and Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901), determined the just and fair compensation as follows:
| Head | Amount (₹) |
| Net Annual Income (Rs.15,027 × 12) | 1,80,324 |
| Future Prospects (50%) | 90,162 |
| Total Income | 2,70,486 |
| 1/3rd Deduction (Personal Expenses) | 90,162 |
| Annual Loss of Dependency | 1,80,324 |
| Multiplier (18) | 32,45,832 |
| Loss of Consortium (2 claimants) | 96,800 |
| Loss of Estate | 18,150 |
| Funeral Expenses | 18,150 |
| Total Compensation | ₹33,78,930 |
Additionally, the Court awarded 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Final Directions:
- The appeal was dismissed.
- Insurance Company was directed to deposit ₹33,78,930 with 9% interest within one month.
- ₹25,00,000 awarded to the wife and ₹8,78,930 to the mother of the deceased.
- Costs awarded in favour of both claimants.
