APHC010146492022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 134 & 309 OF 2022 Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.134 of 2022: National Insurance Co.ltd ...APPELLANT AND Pittu Kamala and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Between in M.A.C.M.A.No.309 of 2022: Pittu Kamala and others ...APPELLANTS AND P Vijaya Raju and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.134 of 2022: KIRAN KUMAR BALIGAMSETTI Counsel for the Respondent(S) in M.A.C.M.A.No.134 of 2022: K RAMA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.590 of 2019 dated 16.11.2021. 2 2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.134 of 2022 is preferred by the insurer of the Mini Travel Tempo Bus bearing No.AP 07 TN 3339 (hereinafter referred to as “crime bus”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are wife and children of one Pittu Srinivasa Reddy (hereinafter called as “deceased”), are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the driver and owner of the said crime bus, respectively. 4. M.A.C.M.A.No.309 of 2022 is preferred by the claimants before the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 6. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 26.06.2019 at about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 DY 1095, when he reached near NH-216 3 Main Road, Petrol Bunk, Karalapalem Village, Guntur District, the driver of the crime bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, resulted the deceased sustained grievous injuries to the head. Then he was shifted to Area Government Hospital at Bapatla, where the doctors declared him already died. ii). The deceased used to earn Rs.1,000/- per day as Mutta Coolie in FCI Godown, Nallamothu Karalapalem and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the said crime bus. 7. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/driver and owner filed respective counters denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the crime bus was falsely implicated in this case; that the crime bus is validly insured with the 3rd respondent/insurer; that the incident occurred was due to the negligence of the deceased, but not 1st respondent; that the 4 compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The respondent No.3/insurer filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the 1st respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the crime bus, thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the policy by the 2nd respondent; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the deceased Pittu Srinivasa Reddy died in the motor accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver (R1) of Mini Travel Bus bearing No.AP07 TN 3339? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for? and 3.To what relief?” 10. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of 5 the respondents, none were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 11. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.17.08,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 12. It is against the said order; these appeals are preferred by the insurer of the crime bus and claimants, respectively. 13. Heard Sri B.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in M.A.C.M.A.No.134 of 2022 and Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.309 of 2022. 14. Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent? 6 15. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident as well involvement of the crime bus, rash, and negligent driving of the same by the 1st respondent/driver in causing the incident. 16. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurer is that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased @ Rs.390/- per day without any documentary evidence, thereby, prays to dismiss the claim made by the claimants. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation entitled by the claimant by taking the income of the deceased @ Rs.390/- per day instead of Rs.1,000/- per day as Mutta Coolie in FCI Godown, thereby, prays to enhance the compensation as claimed. 18. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material on record. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.1,000/- per day as mutta coolie in 7 FCI Godown, Nallamothu. It is not in dispute that no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants to prove the actual income of the deceased. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.A.2 charge sheet, it was mentioned that the deceased was a coolie. 19. In the absence of substantial material on record to prove the income of the deceased, by considering the G.O. issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Office of Chief Labour Commissioner (c) New Delhi, dated 27.03.2019, taken the notional income of the deceased, who is failing under category-C in Rural Areas, at Rs.390/- per day, which requires no interference in the considered opinion of this Court. 20. Then the Tribunal by following the renowned pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2, deducting the personal and living expenses, adding future prospects and by applying 1 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 2 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) 8 suitable multiplier to the age of the deceased, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants and awarded just compensation, thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the said calculations and conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. 21. Viewing from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference warrants to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeals preferred by the insurer as well claimants are liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. 22. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.Nos.134 and 309 of 2022 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 20.03.2025 Krs 9 474 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.Nos.134 & 309 of 2022 ( Common Judgment ) DATE: 20.03.2025 Krs