APHC010603762017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1322 OF 2017 Between: 1. B Tulasi, Krishna District & 1 Other, W/o Nagaraju, Hindu, aged 40 yrs House wife, R/o D No: 2-108, S T Colony, West lbrahimpatnam, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Krishna Dist, .AP 2. Banavathu Nagaraju, S/o Lat Krishna Naik, Hindu, aged 43 yrs , Employee, R/s 22-108, S T Colony, West Ibrahimpatnam, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal ,Krishna Dist, AP (Claimants) ...Petitioners AND 1. SIRI TECON HYDERABAD & 1 OTHER, Rep by Mr Kommaraju Jaya, M/s Sentini Cermica Pvt Ltd., Plot No 1229 Road NO 60 ,Jubli Hills, Hyderabad-500034 2. The United India Insurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Divisional Office-II, Post Box NO 774, Besides High School Road, Patamata, Krishna Dist, Vijayawada 520010 AP ...Respondents Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in MVOP 626 of 2013, dt 25.1.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court 2 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 Cum XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada by allowing appeal and decreeing M V O P 626 of 2013 as prayed for compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-with costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: B VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: L V S PRASAD BABU PUVVADA Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: 3 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 JUDGMENT: Heard, Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned Counsel for the Claimants- appellants and Sri L.V.S.Prasad Babu, learned Counsel for the second respondent-United Insurance Company Limited. 2. The parties are arrayed as arrayed in the present appeal. 3. Dissatisfied with the Award and Decree, dated 25.01.2017, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.626 of 2013, filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim, the present appeal is filed by the appellants. 4. The facts germane in the present appeal are capsuled as under: Petitioners are the father and mother of the deceased, namely Banavath Madhu Naik @ Madhu Babu, who sustained fatal injuries in a road accident that occurred on 19.09.2013. The deceased was travelling along with his cousin, Mr.Bhukya Ramesh, towards Ibrahimpatnam on 19.09.2013 and at about 9.00 P.M., when they reached Paritala Bypass Cross Road on NH-65 main road, the offending lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072, coming from Vijayawada towards Kanchikacherla, in the wrong route in a rash and negligent manner, collided with them. As a result, both the deceased and his cousin sustained multiple grievous injuries. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on 07.10.2013, while his cousin also died on 19.09.2013 while undergoing treatment. In pursuance of the complaint, on 21.09.2013, the Station House Officer, Kanchikacherla Police Station registered Cr.No.227 of 2013 under Section 237 of IPC. 4 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.Vamsi Krishna, contended that, as per the pleadings before the Tribunal, the deceased was running a business under the name and style 8Hanuman Tyre Re- trading Cool Process9 at Chillakallu Village prior to the accident and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, he was 21 years old and was contributing his entire income towards the family expenses. It is further contended that the Claimants incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment and Rs.50,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses. The deceased being the only son of the appellants, they claimed a total compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-. 6. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry and respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and the respondent No.2 filed counter, denying the averments of the petition, contending that the respondent No.2 is not aware of the registration of the case in Cr.No.227 of 2013, under Section 304-A IPC. The other contention, which could be seen from the counter, is that the rider of the motor cycle was not possessing any driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Basing on the pleadings, so placed before the Tribunal, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the deceased, Banavath Madhu Naik @ Madhu Babu died in a Motor Vehicle accident which took place on 19.09.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., on the NH 65 main road near Paritala Byepass road in Kanchikacherla Village due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072 by its driver ? 5 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 2. Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to the compensation as prayed for, if so, from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 8. During the course of trial, the Claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 and Ex.X1 were marked on behalf of the second respondent. 9. While answering Issue No.1, the Tribunal has taken note of the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners. P.W.1 reiterated the averments made in the Claim Petition and got examined one Banavath Vijaya Babu Naik as P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 fortifies that, immediately after the accident, he rushed to the place of accident and shifted both the injured persons to the hospital and, thereafter, lodged a complaint on 21.09.2013. Banavath Madhu Naik succumbed to his injuries on 07.10.2013, while undergoing treatment and the other injured person, who was accompanying the Claimants9 son, also died on 19.09.2013, while undergoing treatment. Ex.A1, which is the copy of F.I.R., reveals that complaint was lodged alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving, which was fortified by the Inquest Report, that was conducted on the dead body and Ex.A4, postmortem examination report, confirms that the death was caused due to multiple injuries. 10. Claimants got examined P.W.3, an Orthopedic Consultant working at Help Hospitals, Vijayawada, who deposed that, on 20.09.2013, when Madhu Babu was admitted in the hospital, he was found to have sustained a Grade-I compound comminuted fracture of left femur. On 29.09.2013, an external fixator was applied as part of the treatment. The medical bills issued by the hospital, marked as 6 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 Ex.A10, amount to Rs.2,99,731.81ps. Ex.X1 is the copy of the Case Sheet of the patient and Ex.A11 is the bunch of X-ray films. Ex.X1, Ex.A10, and Ex.A11, coupled together, substantiate the evidence of P.W.3 regarding the treatment provided to the injured, Banavath Madhu Naik @ Madhu Babu, who subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The Tribunal has taken note of the evidence of P.W.2, who stated that the deceased died on 07.10.2013 while undergoing treatment. 11. Learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal was completely misdirected in placing undue reliance on the evidence of P.W.3. It is argued that the Inquest report and the Postmortem report clearly establish that the deceased succumbed to death on the same day, however, the Tribunal erroneously observed that the patient had left the hospital and, on that basis, questioned the genuineness of the evidence of P.W.3. 12. While coming to the evidence of R.W.1, through which nothing could be elicited, the Tribunal has categorically observed that it can be safely concluded that the deceased, Madhu Naik, died due to multiple injuries sustained in the accident. Further, while appreciating the evidence of R.W.1, who is the owner of the lorry, the Tribunal noted that the petitioner had neither impleaded the lorry driver as a party nor examined him as a witness. Ex.A6 is the copy of the Registration Certificate of the lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072 in the name of respondent No.2 and Ex.A7 is the copy of the Insurance policy of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072 and Ex.A8 is the copy of the driving licence of the deceased, Banavath Madhu Naik. Ex.A9 is the copy of the driving licence of Bhukya Ramesh Naik @ Ramesh Naik. Ex.12 is the copy of the Charge sheet in Cr.No.227 of 2013 while Ex.A13 is the copy of the M.V.I. report. Ex.A.12 reveals that on 7 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 19.09.2013 at 9.00 P.M., the driver one Pamula Andraiah, S/o Yesupadam drove the lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle due to which the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle fell down and sustained injuries. 13. Ex.A13, the Motor Vehicle Inspector9s report, entails that the offending vehicle involved in the accident was a lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072. The report also refers to the driving licence of the lorry driver and opines that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle, which can be safely construed to indicate that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. However, despite recording a finding that the accident vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the accident did not occur due to such rash and negligent driving. Further, while holding that the Claimants failed to adduce sufficient evidence in support of their claim, the Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in favour of the Respondents and against the Claimants. 14. Learned counsel for the Appellants/Claimants would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph No.15 of the Award of the Tribunal, wherein it is observed at the very outset that, except for the copy of the charge sheet, marked as Ex.A12, the petitioner did not produce any direct evidence to establish that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. Learned counsel strenuously contended that the charge sheet itself is sufficient to establish that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It was further argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Claimants failed to establish the rash and negligent driving, as strict proof beyond reasonable doubt. 8 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 15. In support of his claim, learned Counsel for the Appellants/Claimants relied upon the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court reported in Sanju Bai Prajapati and Others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others 1 , wherein, at paragraph No.6, it was held as follows: <6. As far as the accident, it is seen that there is no dispute since a Murg report was made on intimation from the hospital which is produced as Annexure P-1 in which it was recorded that a person involved in a road accident was admitted to the hospital who died at 12:30 am. The accident is said to have occurred at 6 pm and the murg report was on the same day. The mere fact that PW-2, the eyewitness did not approach the police cannot be a reason to find the delay in FIR to be suspicious. The accident itself having been proved and a Murg report filed, definitely investigation would be carried out. We see from the FIR that based on the Murg report an investigation was carried out in the course of which the eyewitness was detected and Annexure P-2 FIR was registered. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the FIR, especially since the insurance company did not make any attempt to examine the investigating officer before the Tribunal.= 16. In oppugnation to the said arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Claimants, Sri L.V.S.Prasad Babu, learned Counsel for the second respondent-United Insurance Company Limited, would vehemently contend that, in the absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the Claimants, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that rash and negligent driving was not established and rejected the claim of the Claimants, which needs no interference. 17. After hearing both the learned Counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal is erroneous in concluding that the Claimants failed to establish the fact of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court that the Claimants need not stress themselves to prove rash and negligent driving when the charge 1 (2025) 9 SCC 414 9 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 sheet and the F.I.R. contend the same and, more so, since the charge sheet is filed only after investigation. 18. It is to be noted that the respondents, who contend that no evidence other than the charge sheet has been adduced by the claimants, have failed to satisfy this Court as to whether they have challenged the said charge sheet before any legal forum. In the absence of such challenge, the charge sheet has to be taken into consideration and, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court ibid, this Court is of the opinion that there is an element of rash and negligent driving and the Appellants/Claimants have satisfactorily placed evidence to substantiate their claim regarding the rash and negligent driving and the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the Claimants and against the respondents in the present appeal. The decision of the Tribunal is overturned. 19. Now, coming to Issue No.2, regarding the compensation, in a connected matter, M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017, filed by the claimants of the deceased, motorcyclist, by name Bhukya Ramesh Nayak @ Ramesh Nayak, this Court allowed the appeal on 02.01.2026 by setting aside the Award of the Tribunal, which had rejected the claim of the claimants therein for compensation on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the rash and negligent driving. In the said appeal, this Court, after reiterating the ratio laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2 applied the multiplier method 8179 since the deceased was aged 28 years. 20. Interestingly, learned Counsel for the Appellants states, at this stage, that a connected Appeal, M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017, arising 2 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 10 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 out of the same accident, was allowed and the present Appeal also deserves to be allowed. 21. As could be seen from the Award passed by the Tribunal, there is no mention about the income of the deceased. When there is a clear statement made by the Claimants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month and in the absence of any categorical denial by the respondents, the Tribunal has not ventured to deal with the said fact for the sole reason that Issue No.1 was rejected. Further, as could be seen from the evidence, there is no contradiction or cross- examination by the Insurance company regarding the income of the deceased at the time of accident and when there is no rebuttal to the contention so raised, this Court has to necessarily accept the said assertion as true and take the statement into consideration. 22. In the interest of justice, it would be right to take the income of the deceased on a reasonable basis since no material is placed before the Tribunal to substantiate that he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month towards the business i.e., 8Hanuman Tyre Retrading Cool Process9 at Chillakallu Village. Though there is no rebuttal to the said claim, this Court is inclined to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that it is only a mere bald contention that the deceased is earning Rs.50,000/-, which is not supported by any evidence and, in such absence, a statement so made in the Claim Petition cannot be taken as a sacrosanct. 23. As stated supra, this Court, in a connected Appeal, M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017, arising out of the same accident, has taken note and held that Rs.5000/- per month to be calculated as income of the deceased and it would continue a JUST compensation if the same is taken uniformly in the present case also. Therefore, the 11 GTK,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1322 of 2017 annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5,000 x 12). After deducting 1/4th of the annual income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.60,000-Rs.15,000/-). Applying the multiplier 8189 as per the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another3, the compensation comes to Rs.45,000 x 18 = Rs.8,10,000/-. An amount of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is fixed. The claimants placed on record the medical bills amounting to Rs.2,90,731.81ps, which cannot be denied and need to be awarded to the Claimants. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.11,70,731.81ps (Rs.8,10,000/-+ 70,000/-+ 2,90,731.81ps). 24. In fine, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, setting aside the Award and Decree, dated 25.01.2017, in M.V.O.P.No.626 of 2013, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit Rs.11,70,731.81ps before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, Claimants are entitled to withdraw the same in equal shares. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. As a sequitur, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J 10th April, 2026 Tsy 3 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC)