APHC010081712019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 160/2019 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP.BY. ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, R/O D.NO. 11/302, MASTHYA COLONY, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. NAGURI VENKATA RAMI REDDY, R/O SASTI NAGAR, AKKAYAPALLI OF KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT TALAMUDIPI, GALIVEEDU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. NAGURI VEDAVATHI, R/O SASTRI NAGAR, AKKAYAPALLI OF KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT TALAMUDIPI, GALIVEEDU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. NAGURI JYOTHI LAKSHMI, R/O SASTRI NAGAR, AKKAYAPALLI OF KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT TALAMUDIPI, GALIVEEDU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 4. AKUTHOTA SIVA KISHORE, OWNER / DRIVER OF CAR BEARING NO.AP.04.AV.0279, R/O D.NO.11-302, MASTYA COLONY, KOTHAPALLE, KHADERABAD, PRODDUTURU TOWN, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court Aggrieved by the order and Decree Dated 15.12.2018 passed in MV.OP.NO.124 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge Court, Rayachoty. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including execution of the Order and Decree dated 15.12.2018 passed in MVOP.No. 124 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge Court, Rayachoty, pending disposal of the MACMA and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VENKATESWARLU PALADUGU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V NITESH The Court made the following: 3 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 ORDER: Aggrieved by order dated 15.12.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2017 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, the present appeal is preferred by United India Insurance Company Limited. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners filed M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2017 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of Naguri Venkata Siva Reddy, the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3 in the accident that occurred on 17.08.2017 at about 5.30p.m. near Chadipiralla village in Kamalapuram – Yerraguntla main road in which the offending car bearing registration No.AP04 AV 0279 belong to the respondent No.1 was involved. 4 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 4. It was the case of the petitioners that on 17.08.2017 the deceased and one Sri. P. Syam Babu were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.AP04 BF 0828 towards Santha Kovvuru village of Thondur mandal to attend marriage. The said Syam Babu was riding the motorcycle and the deceased was pillion rider. When they reached Chadipiralla village situated at Kamalapuram - Yerraguntla main road, the offending car came in opposite direction driven by its driver at high speed in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and thereby lost control over the said vehicle and dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider. As a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Immediately the deceased was shifted to RIMS hospital, Kadapa, where Syam Babu the rider of the motorcycle and Mahesh who was travelling on another motorcycle were declared that they were brought dead and one Sri.P.Hari Babu who was pillion rider on the motorcycle which was driven by Mahesh sustained grievous injuries. A 5 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 case in Crime No.177 of 2017 was registered against driver of the offending vehicle on the file of Kamalapuram Police Station. 5. It was further the case of the petitioners that the deceased was working as Clerk in Navatha Road Transport, Kadapa and was getting an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as salary. Apart from the same he was also doing electrical works i.e., electrical house wiring as he was qualified as such in National Academy of Construction, Hyderabad and he was also earning Rs.500/- per day. It was further case of the petitioners that the deceased was assisting the petitioner No.1 in the agricultural activities. It was further stated that the petitioner was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and the same was being contributed to the family. In view of the sudden demise of the deceased the petitioners have lost the source of their income and thereby approached the Tribunal by filing the present petition on the ground that the accident was occurred in view of the negligence of the driver 6 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 of the offending vehicle seeking to pay compensation as claimed by fastening the liability on the respondents. 6. The respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit stating that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive. It was further contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2/Insurance company and the same is valid from 21.01.2017 to 20.01.2018. It was further contended that as on the date of accident the policy was in force and therefore the respondent No.2 alone was liable to pay compensation. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 and he had valid driving license. The respondent No.2 filed a separate counter affidavit contending that the petitioners have to prove the age and income of the deceased and the manner of accident by producing documentary evidence. It was further contended that the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP04 BF 0828 was not having valid driving license and there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that 7 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of the necessary party in as much as insurer of the motorcycle was not arrayed as party respondents to the claim petition. It is further contended that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license and the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, they have examined PW1 to 5 and marked Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.X1 to X5 were marked through the witnesses. On the other hand respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence. 8. Considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioners, the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.19,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization fastening the liability on the respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same present appeal is filed. 8 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Sai Akash representing Sri. V. Nitesh for respondent Nos.1 to 3. There is no appearance for respondent No.4. Perused the record. 10. Though several grounds are raised in the present appeal, during the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant contested the appeal by questioning quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.19,20,000/- in as much as even going by the pleadings of the petition, the income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/- per month. He would further submit that, in such circumstances the Tribunal ought not to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.12,500/-, in the absence of any documentary evidence put forth by them. In order to substantiate the contention of the appellant, no oral or documentary evidence is placed on record. 9 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 12. On the other hand the petitioner No.2, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW1 who categorically deposed that the deceased was working as Clerk in Navatha Road Transport, Kamalapuram. A perusal of the evidence of PW2 would further go to show that, apart from the same, the deceased was also taking part in agricultural activities along his father. In addition to that it is the case of the petitioners the deceased was also working in M.B.R Electricals, Kadapa and was earning Rs.500/- per day. To substantiate the same the owner of M.B.R Electricals, Sri. M. Bayareddy was examined as PW5. A perusal of the evidence of PW5 would confirm the averments made by the petitioners in the claim petition and the same also corroborates with the evidence of PW1. 13. Further one Sri.B. Siva Prasad, Officer working in Navatha Transport company was examined as PW4, who deposed that the deceased was working as Clerk in Navata Transport company and drawing an amount of Rs.7,935/- per month as salary. In order to substantiate the same, Salary 10 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 Certificate of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal and the same was marked as Ex.X1. Apart from the same PW4 also filed copies of pay slip and pay acquaintance register containing the signature of the deceased before the Tribunal and the same were marked as Ex.A2 to A5. Upon consideration of the documents placed before the Tribunal, the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.12,500/- per month in as much as the deceased was also assisting his father in agricultural activities that were carried out in the lands belonging to petitioner No.1. Apart from the same a perusal of evidence of PW5, it is clear that the deceased was getting Rs.500/- per day. Though the same was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased notionally as Rs.12,500/- per month. As already noted supra, the respondents have not placed anything on record to disprove the evidence of the petitioners. Apart from the same the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 5 remained unshattered. 11 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 14. In such circumstances by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the order under challenge suffers from infirmity. Viewed from any angle there are no merits in the present appeal. Accordingly the same is dismissed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 16.04.2026 PBS 12 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.160 of 2019 Dated 16.04.2026 119 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No: 160 of 2019 Date: 16.04.2026 PBS