APHC010335632019 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: 108/2020 Between: 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, GUNTUR CITY. 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. YAKKALLA SUJATHA, W/O. LATE VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, 50 YEARS, R/O. SINDHU APARTMENTS, PLOT NO.106, RAJAGARIKOTA, NARASARAOPET TOWN 2. CHAVVA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. CHINA ANJANEYULU, DRIVER, R/O. BAPANAIAHNAGAR, NARASARAOPET. 3. PONNAPATI RAMA LAKSHMI, W/O. KOTESWARA REDDY, R/O.D.NO.7-28/B, LINGAMGUNTLA COLONY, NARASARAOPET. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to stay the execution of decree and Judgment in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2016 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - CUM- XIII Addl. District Judge Narasaraopet, dated 2nd day of May, 2019, IA NO: 1 OF 2020 2 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 pleased to condone the delay of 99 days in re-presenting the MACMA Sr.No.25086 of 2019, in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 pleased to grant stay the execution of the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2016 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - CUM- XIII Addl. District Judge Narasaraopet, dated 2nd day of May, 2019, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. IA NO: 3 OF 2020 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 Pleased to vacate the stay granted by this Hon'ble Court in I.A.2/2020 in MACMA 108/2020 dt. 06.02.2020 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2020 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 Pleased to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellant Insurance Co, in pursuance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in I.A.2/2020 in MACMA 108/2020 dt 06.02.2020 and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. N RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S A V RATNAM 3 The Court made the following judgment: Aggrieved by order dated 02.05.2019 in MVOP.No.61 of 2016, on the file of the Chairman-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narasaraopet, the present appeal is preferred by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, read with rules made thereunder, claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- on account of the death of Venkateswarlu, husband of the petitioner (herein after referred to as, the deceased), in the accident that occurred on 25.04.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that, she along with her family members, including the deceased, was proceeding to Tirupathi in Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.AP07TF3339. When the vehicle reached Ulavapadu near Paleru Bridge near Jaleel Hotel, the driver of the tempo traveller drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed stationed lorry parked on the left side of the road margin. As a result, the petitioner and five of them sustained bleeding injuries and they were shifted to Sangamithra Hospital, Ongole. The deceased succumbed to injuries. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as an LIC agent, earning Rs.20,000/- per 4 month as commission. Due to the sudden demise of her husband, the petitioner filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remain ex-parte. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter affidavit denying the manner of the accident as narrated by the petitioner. It was contended that the driver of the tempo traveller did not possess valid and effective driving license and that the offending vehicle did not have valid permit and registration. It was further contended that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not liable to pay compensation. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver, who failed to take proper precautions. With the above pleadings, the respondent Nos.3 & 4 prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. To substantiate her claim, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and also examined PWs.2 and 3. The petitioner also filed Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not adduce any oral evidence, however, a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. The Tribunal, after conducting enquiry, by order under challenge, awarded compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- under various conventional heads, fastening liability on all the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company preferred the present appeal. 5 6. Heard Sri N.Rama Krishna, counsel for the appellant and Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. There is no appearance for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. The present appeal is filed questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- especially when there was no documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. He would also further submit that the petitioner failed to place any material on record to establish that the deceased was working as LIC agent as on the date of the accident. In order to substantiate the said contention it is pertinent to note that the respondents did not adduced any oral evidence. Apart from marking a copy of the insurance policy, nothing was placed on record, to rebut the contention of the petitioner. 9. A perusal of the order under challenge would go to show that the Tribunal did not believe the contention of the petitioner that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as LIC agent and postal agent. However, on perusal of Ex.P8, it is clear that the deceased was paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per annum during the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 by the petitioner herself towards the assistance rendered by him. Further, the petitioner filed Income Tax Returns, which 6 were marked as Ex.P9, and the same would show that the petitioner had reflected the payments made to her husband therein in her returns. As already noted supra, though the petitioner claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal did not accept the said claim in its entirety and, taking into consideration of Exs.P8 and P9, fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any contra evidence to disprove the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Further, the Tribunal, after following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another1 awarded compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- under various heads. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.16.04.2026 DSB 1 2009 6 SCC 121 7 98 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.108 of 2020 Date 16.04.2026 U DSB