APHC010156122019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 413/2019 Between: 1. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BESIDE NARAYANA COLLEGE, OPP. OFFICE CLUB, KADAPA CITY. ...APPELLANT AND 1. DAMARLA VENKATESWARLU, AGED 46 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS.RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 60, DWARAKA NAGAR POLI, RAJ AMPETA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. DAMARLA SHIVA PARVATHI, W/O VENKATESWARULU, AGED 38 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE. 3. DAMARLA SREEVANI, D/O VENKATESWARULU, AGED 20 YEARS, HINDU, STUDENT, 4. DAMARLA PAVAN KALYAN, S/O VENKATESWARULU, AGED 18 YEARS, HINDU, STUDENT, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF FLAT NO. 60, DWARAKA NAGAR POLI, RAJ AMPETA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2 5. MUMADI VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/O SUBBARAMI REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS, OWNER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE TIPPER BEARING NO.AP 03 TB 6039, R/O D.NO. 2/199, KAPUPALLE VILLAGE, MANGAMPET POST, OBULAVARIPALLE MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. KOULURU SUBRAHMANYAM REDDY, S/O SUBBARAMI REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS, DRIVER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE TIPPER BEARING NO.AP 03 TB 6039, R/O D.NO. 2/199, KAPUPALLE VILLAGE, MANGAMPET POST, OBULAVARIPALLE MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order and Decree Dated 11.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.347/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, 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 stay all further proceedings of the Decree and order Dated: 11.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.347/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa pending disposal of the main appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M S P KAMARAJU The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.No.413 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The United India Insurance Company Limited, filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 11.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.347 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, (FAC) I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.19,15,800/- as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one Damarla Sai Prakash due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 25.04.2017. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred herein as arrayed before the Tribunal. The claimants, who are parents, sister and brother of the deceased Sai Prakash, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 455, 475 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one Damarla Sai Prakash due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 25.04.2017. On the intervening night of 24/25.04.2017 at about 4 12.15 A.M., the deceased and first petitioner went to Sudharashan Reddy fields for the purpose of pouring diesel into the diesel tank of the tractor bearing No.AP-03-BB-0101. At that time, the driver of the tractor and the petitioner was pouring diesel into the diesel tanker of the said tractor and the deceased was standing by the side of the tractor and at that time the offending tipper bearing No.AP-03-PB-6039 with a load of tank mud was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following Rules and without blowing horn, and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries all over his body. Immediately, after the incident, the deceased was shifted to Tirupati for treatment, and when they reached near Railway Kodur, he succumbed to the injuries. A case in Crime No.57 of 2017 under Section 304 A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. At the time of the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as Salesman in Eicher Showroom at Rajampet and was earning a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and he was contributing the same for the welfare of his family members. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner. Hence, the claim petition. 5 3. While the respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the averments made in the petition and disputing the holding of valid driving licence by the driver of the tipper and the manner of the accident. The 3rd respondent opposed the claim made by the claimants as excessive and exorbitant. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether the deceased Damarla Sai Prakash died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.04.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper bearing No.AP-03-PB-6039? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on their behalf. 6. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence of Ex.A.5-charge sheet and in the 6 absence of contrary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper at a high speed and caused the death of Sai Prakash. Having considered the evidence of PW.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence Ex.A.6 and Ex.X.1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was working as Salesman at the time of accident and considered his income as Rs.300/- per day and Rs.9,000/- per month and Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. Further, as per the recitals of Ex.A.2-copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3-copy of post-mortem certificate and Ex.A.5-charge sheet, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 18 years and by applying multiplier of “18” as per the principles laid down in SarlaVerma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298) for the age of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.19,44,000/- (1,08,000/- X 18 = 19,44,000/-) and after deducting 50% out of the said amount, as the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.9,72,000/- (19,44,000/- X 50% = 9,72,000/-). Further, following the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017 Supreme (SC) 1050), the Tribunal, considering the fact that the deceased was a 7 bachelor and has chances of increase in his earnings, assessed the future prospects at 40% and awarded Rs.3,88,800/- (9,72,000/- X 40% = Rs.3,88,800/-). In all, the Tribunal assessed loss of dependency at Rs.13,60,800/- (9,72,000/- + 3,88,800/-), apart from awarding Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, following the principle laid down in Kaladevi and others v. Bagwandas Chauhan and others (2014 ACJ 2875), the Tribunal also awarded Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- to each petitioner) towards loss of love and affection. In addition thereto, following the principles laid down in G.M. Kerla S.R.T.C., Trivendram v. Susamma Thomas (1994 (2) SCC 176, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life. In all, the Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.19,15,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally, by apportioning the compensation between the claimants. Assailing the said award of compensation, the present appeal came to be filed. 7. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Insurance company and Sri Damarla Venkateswarlu learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8 8. Learned standing counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company without there being any evidence. The Tribunal erred in taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month without there being any proper evidence; and the Tribunal grossly erred in applying multiplier “18” for the age of the deceased at 18 years, in as much as the multiplier table in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation starts from the age group of 21-25, in which event, the Tribunal should have taken aid of Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in applying multiplier for the age group of 15-20 years and the appropriate multiplier as per the Motor Vehicles Act for the said age group is “16”. The Tribunal grossly erred in awarding amounts under the other heads, which is unsustainable in law. 9. In view of the contentions raised by the appellant-insurance company, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are;- 1) Whether the award of Tribunal is justified in awarding a just compensation? 2) If not, whether the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside? 9 3) To what relief? 10. Before considering the questions arise for determination in this appeal, at the outset, it is not dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper bearing No.AP-03-PB-6039 at a high speed rashly and negligently, on account of which the death of the deceased Damarla Sai Prakash was caused, and the said conclusions have become final and needs no interference in the absence of substantial material on the part of the appellant Insurance Company. 11. Learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurance company mainly assailed the award mainly on various grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal grossly erred in fastening the liability of the appellant-insurance company. On a perusal of the impugned award, it appears that though the appellant-insurance company contended that the 1st respondent-owner of the tractor violated the terms and conditions of the policy, but, it did not place any material in proof of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, nor did it examine any independent witness to prove such violation of the terms and conditions. Consequently, as there was 10 no substantial material on the part of the insurance company, the Tribunal is left with no option except to rely on the contentions of the petitioners in fastening the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation jointly and severally along with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in that respect are well founded and do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference of this Court. 12. Secondly, in so far as applying multiplier “18” for the age of the deceased as 18 years is concerned, the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased by the time of accident as 18 years, applied the multiplier “18” as per the observations in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298), which indicates that the multiplier table as indicated therein starts from the age group of 15-20 years and the appropriate multiplier for the said group is “18”. Therefore, since the deceased was aged about 18 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal rightly applied the appropriate multiplier “18” and the said approach of the Tribunal in applying the multiplier for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency is well justified and reasonable and thus, it does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 11 Therefore, the contention of the learned standing counsel that the Tribunal grossly erred in applying multiplier “18” for the age of the deceased at 18 years, is not acceptable and is liable to be repudiated. 13. Lastly, in so far as the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to award of compensation under the other heads, are concerned, the Tribunal, basing on the principles laid down in the precedents cited therein and the reasons assigned therein for award of such amounts are just reasonable and well founded. Hence, this court is of the view that the contentions raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant are unsustainable and have no merit. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order and decree dated 11.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.347of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, (FAC) I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. There shall be no order as to costs. 12 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _____________ V. SUJATHA, J Date: 27.06.2025 Ksn