APHC010307692022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 225/2022 Between: 1. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THULA COMPLEX, GANDHINAGAR, KURNOOL TOWN AND DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. M PUSHPALATHA, W/O. LATE YESU, 26 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.5-63, AMBEDKARNAGAR, DINNEDEVARAPADU VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. M SUVARTHAMMA, W/O.M.RAMUDU, 55 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.5-63, AMBEDKARNAGAR, DINNEDEVARAPADU VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. M RAMUDU RAMULU, S/O LATE M.PAKIRAPPA, 58 YEARS 21 YEARS (R1 TO R3 ARE PETITIONERS IN M.V.O.P) R/O.D.NO.5-63, AMBEDKARNAGAR, DINNEDEVARAPADU VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. B VENKAIAHI, S/O.B.VENKATAIAH, MAJOR, R/O. H.NO.28/1052/A1, JANAKINAGAR, KALLUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.(R1 IN M.V.O.P) 2 5. M SHANKAR, S/O.GOVINDU, MAJOR, H.NO. 4/110, DINNEDEVARAPADU VILLAGE, KURNOOL TOWN AND DISTRICT(R3 IN MVOP) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomemorandum of appeal against the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.662/2014 dated 02-03-2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool IA NO: 1 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 pleased to condone the delay of 12 days, in presenting the appeal, and pass IA 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings passed in M.V.O.P. No.662/2014 dated 02-03¬2022 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principall District Court, Kurnool, pending disposal of the M.A.C.M.A., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.673/2022 in M.V.O.P.No.662 of 2014, on the file of the M.A.C.T. cum P.D.J, Kurnool, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, 3 the High Court may be pleased pleased to extend the time to comply with stay orders dt.06-07-2022, passed in I.A.No.2/2022 in M.A.C.M.A.No.225 of 2022, and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 225/2022 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 02.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.662 of 2014 on the file the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool, awarding compensation of Rs.12,13,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till 25.10.2015 and from 15.11.2018 till the date of realization. 2. Parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. This is a case of death. The wife, mother and father of the deceased instituted claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- along with interest on account of death. The deceased, aged 28 years and working as a mason, is stated to have met with accident on 22.12.2013 while he was walking on road and proceeding to Vengannabavi, outskirts of Kurnool town, on account of hit by the 5 car bearing No.AP21AR-1815. The car was owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 3rd respondent. On account of rash and negligent driving of the car at high speed, the accident is stated to have occurred, resulting in death of the husband of 1st claimant on spot. The incident was reported to police and the same was registered as Crime No.322 of 2013. Later, after investigation, charge sheet was laid against the driver of the vehicle. The deceased was stated to be earning Rs.8000/- per month as mason and therefore, claim was laid for Rs.13,00,000/-. 5. Respondent Nos.1 & 3, owner and driver of car, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed written statement denying the manner in which accident occurred and disputing that the driver of the car was negligent in causing the accident, besides earnings of deceased, his age and also the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. 6. In order to prove the case of claimants, deceased wife was examined as PW1 and eye witness as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. For insurer, RW1-Administrative Officer was examined and got marked Exs.B1 & B2. 7. Based on the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 6 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the car bearing registration No.AP21AR-1815? 2. Whether the deceased Yesu died in the road accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, what amount and against whom? 4. To what relief? 8. Considering the evidence of eye witness-PW2 and Exs.A1 to A5 i.e., FIR, Charge sheet, inquest report, post-mortem report and MVA report, the Tribunal has come to conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the car. The insurer had raised objection that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and as it was a hit and run case, the identification of vehicle could not be established. The said issue has been answered by the Tribunal holding that in view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants, the accident occurred on account of involvement of the car, which resulted in death. Having decided aforesaid two issues, Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation. As there was no evidence adduced to support the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.8000/- per month, it notionally assessed his income as Rs.6000/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects and deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 17, has assessed loss of dependency as Rs.11,42,400/-. It had also granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of 7 estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, in total an amount of Rs.12,13,000/-, came to be awarded along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred. 9. Heard Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. Sravan Kumar learned counsel for respondent No.1. 10. Notices taken out to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are returned unserved with endorsement “insufficient address” and it is stated that both of them were set ex parte before the Tribunal. Therefore, service is complete. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that accident occurred on account of hit by the car, particularly when Ex.B2, which is the statement given by owner of the vehicle, discloses that the car never involved in the accident. Even otherwise, as the car was used for hire, the same amounts to violation of provisions of policy. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have imposed liability on insurer. He lastly contended that the Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased as Rs.6000/- without any basis, and the same is excessive. 8 12. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, on the other hand, supported the impugned order by contending that the Tribunal, basing on evidence i.e., Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Charge sheet, Ex.A3-inquest report, Ex.A4-post-mortem report and Ex.A5-MVI report, has come to conclusion that car was involved in the accident and in the absence of driver of the car being examined to prove otherwise, it cannot be said that deceased died without involvement of the car. He further contended that as the driver of the car has not been examined, the claim of the insurer that vehicle was used for commercial purpose has not been proved, as the burden lies on them to justify the same. Further it is contended that the Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-, which is reasonable considering the nature of work discharged, and does not warrant interference. 13. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 14. The point that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the order passed by the Tribunal, in relation to determination of liability and compensation awarded, suffer from any perversity? 15. The case of the claimants is that on 22.12.2011, deceased was hit by car bearing No.AP21AR-1815 at about 10.30 p.m. In 9 order to prove the same, eye witness-PW2 was examined besides marking Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Charge sheet, Ex.A3-inquest Report, Ex.A4-Post-mortem report and Ex.A5-MVI report. The initial burden lies on the claimants to prove that firstly, accident occurred and consequently, the death was on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, evidence of PW2 and Exs.A1 & A2 go to show that the deceased was hit by the car and succumbed on the spot. The death is also confirmed in view of Exs.A3 & A4. 16. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence of PW2 and aforesaid evidence, has come to aforesaid conclusion. With respect to the negligence of driver, Tribunal basing on Ex.A1, Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 has concluded that the driver of car was responsible and was negligent in causing the accident. Though, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the statement of the owner of the car in criminal proceedings, which is marked as Ex.B2 in the proceedings, would become relevant in deciding as to whether vehicle at all was involved in the accident. In the opinion of this Court, the said evidence has no significance, inasmuch as the insurer has not bothered to summon the 1st respondent-owner nor the 3rd respondent-driver of car to speak. The said statement of driver in 10 criminal proceedings cannot be the basis to either form any opinion or come to conclusion in the present proceedings. 17. In view of the same, findings rendered by the Tribunal with respect to the involvement of car in accident and also the negligence of driver of car in causing the death, do not suffer from any infirmity and do not call for interference. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the car, which was supposed to be used for personal use, has been hired in violation of conditions of the policy. Though plea was raised, insurer has not taken any steps to examine the driver nor any inmates connected to the car to prove that the same was used on hire but not for personal use. Therefore, as the burden to prove lies on the insurer, the same has not been discharged. 19. Coming to the aspect of determination of compensation, Tribunal has taken notional income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month. It is not denied or disputed that deceased was working as mason. Considering the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time, determination of Rs.6000/- per month in the opinion of this Court, appears to be reasonable and fair. Therefore, Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month. 11 20. On the point of conventional heads, as per the judgments in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra-1), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others1,Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors. 3., and Rojalini Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others4, the claimants are entitled to the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, i.e., ₹48,400/- (per claimant), ₹18,150/- and ₹18,150/- respectively, as was awarded in Rojalini’s Case(5-Supra). 21. Therefore, the compensation that the claimants would be entitled under the head of loss of dependency and other conventional heads, are revised as under: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income Rs.6,000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 28 years) Rs.28,800/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income Rs.1,00,800/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) Rs.33,600/- 1 (2018) 11 SCC 780 2 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682 3 (2021) 11 SCC 780 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 12 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.67,200/- 5 Multiplier of 17 for the age of 28 years Rs.11,42,400/- (17 x Rs.67,200/-) Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (3 claimants) Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- x 3) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 7 Total Compensation Rs.13,23,900/- 22. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, however, the compensation awarded to the respondents/claimants stand enhanced to Rs.13,23,900/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till 25.10.2015 and from 15.11.2018 till the date of realization, in following terms: 1. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, the claimants are at liberty to initiate appropriate steps for recovery of the same along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 13 2. Out of total compensation amount of Rs.13,23,900/-, the 1st claimant-wife is entitled for an amount of Rs.6,61,950/-, 2nd claimant-mother is entitled for Rs.3,31,475/- and the 3rd claimant-father is entitled for Rs.3,30,475/-. 3. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 4. Entire costs in this case are awarded in favour of the 1st claimant before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 19.08.2025 ANS 14 362 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 225/2022 Date: 19.08.2025 ANS