APHC010199 272017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos: 48 AND 2724 OF 2017 Bench Sr.No:-157 [3584] MACMA No.48 of 2017: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa Dist. ...Appellant Vs. Neelam Supriya, Kadapa Dist and 2 Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr.SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Advocate for Respondents: Mr.M S P KAMARAJU (not appeared) **** MACMA No.2724 of 2017: Neelam Supriya and 2 Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. V Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Anr. ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellants: Mr.M S P KAMARAJU (not appeared) Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr.SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA, *** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 30th June 2026 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Both these appeals - one preferred by Insurer and the other by claimants- arise out of the very same award, dated 08.08.2016, in 2 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.48 & 2724 of 2017 M.V.O.P.No.315 of 2015, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, (for short, “the Tribunal”), and the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. M.A.C.M.A. No.48 of 2017 is preferred by insurer and whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.2724 of 2017 is preferred by claimants. 4. The facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are set out as under: (a) The motor vehicle accident involving the deceased viz., Neelam Chandra Sekhar occurred at about 9.00 A.M. on 18.04.2015 while he was travelling on motorcycle bearing No.AP04 AW 5852 towards Rapur. When he reached Anampalli Forest check post, the offending vehicle viz., Tata Spacio bearing No.AP04 AY 3727, coming in opposite direction at high speed in rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle, on which deceased was riding, on account of which he sustained bleeding injuries and got shifted to Government Hospital, Rajampet. On the advice of doctors, he was 3 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.48 & 2724 of 2017 shifted to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati, for better treatment, where deceased succumbed due to injuries after five days. (b) Initially, on 20.06.2015, the incident came to be reported to Chitvel Police Station, Kadapa District, who registered Crime No.36 of 2015 for the offence under Section 337 IPC. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. Later, as deceased succumbed due to the injuries, altered FIR came to be registered for the offence under Sections 307 and 304-A IPC. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of altered F.I.R. Later, the police have laid charge-sheet against the driver of offending Tata Spacio vehicle. (c) The deceased was aged about 29 years and was a driver, stated to have had driving licence issued by Kuwait Government, where he worked for some time. The deceased claimed to be earning about Rs.20,000/- per month besides Rs.5,000/- per month, for overtime job at the time of occurrence of accident. Accordingly, wife and mother of deceased filed the claim seeking compensation of Rs.55,00,000/-. 5. The 1st respondent, driver-cum-owner of Tata Spacio vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent Insurer of the said vehicle, contested the claim. 4 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.48 & 2724 of 2017 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by Insurer, it has been disputed that the accident had occurred solely on account rash driving of driver of Tata Spacio, since, it was a case of head on collision, according to Insurer, even the deceased also contributed to the occurrence. That apart, age, earnings and the occupation of deceased have also been severely disputed. 7. Considering the respective pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata Spacio bearing No.AP04 AY 3727 resulting the death of the deceased by name Neelam Chandra Sekhar on 18.04.2015? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 8. In support of the claim, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. Likewise, on behalf of Insurer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 9. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the driver of offending vehicle Tata Spacio was solely responsible for causing accident and that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. 5 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.48 & 2724 of 2017 10. Insofar as second issue was concerned, the Tribunal has considered the age of deceased as 29 years based on Ex.A7 passport. The income came to be assessed as Rs.12,000/- per month and after granting future prospects at the rate of 50% and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applying multiplier of 17, has determined the compensation for loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, in total, awarded Rs.25,83,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. 11. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurer had preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.48 of 2017 questioning the liability aspect. The claimants have also preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.2724 of 2017, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so determined. 12. Heard Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for Insurer and none appeared for claimants. 13. The following points arise for our consideration: “1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and thereby, fixing entire liability on the Insurer alone and whether 6 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.48 & 2724 of 2017 the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation to the claimants in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties? 2. To what relief?” 14. Learned counsel for the Insurer mainly contended that since the accident had occurred because of head on collision by both motorcycle as well as Tata Spacio, the Tribunal ought to have held both drivers of respective vehicles were equally responsible, and therefore, was a clear case of contributory negligence. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed entire liability on the Insurer. Except for aforesaid ground, no other ground has been urged. 15. We have gone through the material on record. The occurrence of accident on 18.04.2015 has not been disputed, however, the manner in which accident has occurred is in issue. As per the claimants version, the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle Tata Spacio, whereas, as per the Insurer, both deceased and as well as driver of Tata Spacio were equally responsible for occurrence of accident, as it was a head on collision. Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is certified copy of charge-sheet and Ex.A6 is altered FIR. In order to prove their claim, the claimants have relied on Exs.A1, A2 and A6, which suggested that 7 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.48 & 2724 of 2017 the driver of offending vehicle Tata Spacio was responsible for the accident, besides the same, evidence of PW.2, eyewitness to the incident, also supported the case of claimants. Whereas, the Insurer sought to rely on Ex.B2 certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.222 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet, by which, the Court has acquitted the driver of offending Tata Spacio vehicle. 16. The Tribunal on appreciation of aforesaid evidence adduced on either side, has come to conclusion that the accident had occurred because of negligence of driver of offending Tata Spacio vehicle. The Tribunal also held that merely because the criminal case ended in acquittal on account of the main eyewitnesses, including PW.2 herein, turning hostile, the same by itself would not be a valid ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 herein. We may also add here the degree of proof required to be established in criminal case is that of beyond reasonable doubt and whereas, in the present case, it only requires to be tested on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. We, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. 8 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.48 & 2724 of 2017 17. It is also to be noted that in order to establish the contributory negligence on the part of deceased, the only other material and reliable witness was the driver of offending Tata Spacio vehicle, who never came to be examined. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurer to hold that even the deceased was negligent and contributed to the accident. As no other point has been argued by the Insurer, the appeal filed by the Insurer deserves to be dismissed. 18. In the appeal filed by the claimants, the claimants have mainly urged two issues – firstly, that the income of deceased ought to have been considered as Rs.25,000/- per month, as he worked as driver at Kuwait for a considerable length of time and even possessed licence issued by the Kuwait Government, and, secondly, that considering the age of deceased as 29 years, proper multiplier of 19 ought to have been applied. 19. The claimants have sought to rely on Ex.A9 driving licence issued by Kuwait Government and Ex.A10 employment contract, coupled with the evidence of PW.3, to contend that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month at the time of accident. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, has come to conclusion that even if 9 HCJ & CGR, J. M.A.C.M.A. Nos.48 & 2724 of 2017 deceased worked as driver at Kuwait, at some point of time and had contract to work in future, considering nature of work and the remuneration as payable to driver within the country, income of Rs.12,000/- per month would be reasonable. We really do not find any infirmity with such reasoning requiring indulgence. Further, the age of deceased since is not disputed, the proper multiplier would be “17” in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1. Therefore, both the grounds urged by the claimants have no merit. 20. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed confirming the award, dated 08.08.2016, in M.V.O.P.No.315 of 2015, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in these appeals shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. cs 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121