\ APHC010301452021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI QMS WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 35 OF 2022 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, 1®* Floor, Janaki Nursing Home, Near Vivekananda Statue, Chilakaluripet Post and Mandal, Guntur District. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Sure Koteswaramma, W/o.Seetharamanjaneyulu, Aged about 53 years Occ- House wife. 2. Sure Prasanna Rama Krishna, S/o.Seetharamanjaneyulu, aged about 35 years. 3. Sure Venkata Subramnayam, S/o.Seetharamanjaneyulu, aged about 51 years. All are R/o.Karempudi Village, Karempudi-1, Guntur District. ... Respondents/Petitioners 4. Mr Maddigapu Eeswara Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, H.No.2-10, Mullu Bazar, Rentala Villave, Rentachinthala Mandal, Guntur District. R/0. 5. Vemula Koteswara Rao, S/o.Raju aged about 27 years, Mittagudipadu, Rentachinthala Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the order and Decree fDt-26.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.05/2016 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Addl. District Judge, Gurazala This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri S A V Ratnam, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri N Subba Rao, Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the M.A.C.M.A. be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/-PVINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// // ^ SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Addl. District Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District 2. Two CD Copies VNA HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 35 OF 2022 16 SEP 2025 ^ ^ . Current Secnon . o X' m, DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS APHC010301452021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 35 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the order and Decree Dt-26.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.05/2016 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Addl. District Judge, Gurazala Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, 1®* Floor, Janaki Nursing Home, Near Vivekananda Statue, Chilakaluripet Post and Mandal, Guntur District. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Sure Koteswaramma, W/o.Seetharamanjaneyulu, Aged about 53 years Occ- House wife. 2. Sure Prasanna Rama Krishna, S/o.Seetharamanjaneyulu, aged about 35 years. 3. Sure Venkata Subramnayam, S/o.Seetharamanjaneyuiu, aged about 51 years. Ail are R/o.Karempudi Village, Karempudi-1, Guntur District. .. .Respondents/Petitioners 4. Mr Maddigapu Eeswara Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, H.No.2-10, Mullu Bazar, Rentala Villave, Rentachinthala Mandal, Guntur District. 5. Vemula Koteswara Rao; S/o.Raju aged about 27 Mittagudipadu, Rentachinthala Mandal, Guntur District. years, R/o. ...Respondents/ Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 Dt.26-11-2019 passed in MVOP.05/2016 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - X Additional District Judge, Gurazala, pending disposal of the main appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri S A V Ratnam Counsel for the Respondents: Sri N Subba Rao The Court made the following Order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.35 of 2022 JUDGMENT; This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge at Gurazala (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.5 of 2016 dated 26.11.2019. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the Chevrolet Tavera Car bearing No.AP 07 TD 0106 (hereinafter referred to as crime car”). The respondent Nos.l to 3, who are wife and sons of one Sure Seetharamanjaneyulu (hereinafter called as “deceased”) respectively, are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the owner and driver of the said crime car. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 16.06.2013 at about midnight 12.00, while the deceased proceeding on crime car from Shirdi to Karempudi, when he reached Chennamma Hotel, Shamshabad, Outer Ring Road, Hyderabad, the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent 2 manner, dashed an unknown lorry, resulted the deceased died on the spot, ii). The deceased was doing business at Karempudi, earning Rs.30,000/- per month and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. They claimed compensation of Rs.31,40,000/- against the insurer, and driver of the crime car. The respondent No.2/insurer of the crime car filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent and that the claimants are not the dependents on the deceased, thereby, prayed to dismiss the claim against this respondent. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: owner. 5. 6. 1 .Whether death of Sure Seeta Ramanjaneyulu/deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Chevrolet Tavera Car bearing No.AP 07 TD 0106? '4 3 2.Whether petitioners are entitled for the amount of compensation claimed by them, if so to what amount and from whom? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined, Exs.A.l to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B.l, X. 1 to X.3 were marked. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the 3rd respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 12,50,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.l to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime car. 10. Heard Sri S.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri N.Subbarao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l to 3/claimants. 1 ' ^ 4 11. Now, the point that arise for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of crime car, rash and negligent driving of the crime car by the 3rd respondent in causing the incident, Ex.B. 1 policy issued in respect of the crime car is in force by the date of incident. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred by the claimants against the findings of the Tribunal. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that by the time of incident, there are eleven passengers who were travelling in crime car as against the capacity of ten (9 +1), thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the policy. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contends that the Tribunal rightly considered the fact that, at the time of the incident, the crime vehicle was carrying eleven passengers, and accordingly attributed 20% contributory 5 negligence to the deceased. However, he submits that this breach of condition is not so fundamental as to have directly contributed to the cause of the accident. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an enhancement of the compensation as originally claimed before the Tribunal. In support of this contention, he relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance^. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the It is ciystal clear from the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.3 charge sheet that total eleven persons were travelling in the crime car at the time of accident, whereas, the seating capacity of the said vehicle is only ten as per the testimony of R.W.2, who is an RTA Official, thereby, it is nothing but amounts to violation of permit. The Tribunal by considering the said fact borne out from the record and by following the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, rightly fastened the 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, which requires no 15. material available on record. 16. Manu/SC/0016/2016 6 interference of this Court. Furthermore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants is not applicable to the present facts of the case. It is needless to say that even the claimants pleaded that the deceased earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing business, by considering Exs.A.4 and A.5, the Tribunal rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month, as well following the renowned pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^ calculated and awarded compensation entitled by the claimants. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. — ' 17. 18. 19. \ 2 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 7 Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Addl. District Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District (with records) 2. One CC to Sri. S A V Ratnam Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. N Subba Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies Stu vna HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 35 OF 2022 g 16 SEP 2025 Current Ssciion ^ir m it DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS