APHC010009652008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI <ir :ry' c:^ ^ r^'/i AJ* G MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI jVIOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2707 OF 2008 Between: 1. Peddadaka Manjula, W/o.Late P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 25 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Peddadaka Chedhuvardhana Reddy, S/o.Late P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 5 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. Peddadaka Lihit Reddy, S/o.P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 3 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. 4. Peddadaka Reddeppa, S/o.Ramaiah, aged about 57 R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. Peddadaka Santhamma, W/o.Reddeppa, aged about 52 years. years R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. (R-2 and R-3 being minors, rep by their mother natural Guardian) ...Appellants/Claimants AND '■•t. . 1. K.Lakshmi, W/o.K.Obulesu, Major, Transport Operator, R/0.D.N0.1641-A, Uma Nagar, Old Town, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District. ^ 2. The United India Insurance Company, Anantapur Branch, rep by its Manager, Anantapur. ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri N.Aswartha Narayana (No representation) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the 0"der and Decree, dated 19-09-2006 passed in OP No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Chair Person, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l l Additional , District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate for Appellants, and of Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and none appeared for Respondent No.1. 1. That the Appeal be and the same hereby is allowed; 2. That the liability be and hereby is fixed on Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company also; and 3. That there be no order as to costs in this MAGMA. SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:23/06/2025 % 0 2 AUG 2025 DECREE o». ^ . Current Seciion , ^ MACMA NO.2707 OF 2008 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS APHC010009652008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI V -p\ MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE Uii ot - -gsv'/ PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2707 OF 2008 Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and Decree, dated 19-09-2006 passed in OP No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Chair Person, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. Between: 1. Peddadaka Manjula, W/o.Late P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 25 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Peddadaka Chedhuvardhana Reddy, S/o.Late P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 5 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. Peddadaka Lihit Reddy, S/o.P.Madhusudhana Reddy, aged about 3 ' years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. 4. Peddadaka Reddeppa, S/o.Ramaiah, aged about 57 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. Peddadaka Santhamma, W/o.Reddeppa, aged about 52 years, R/o.PudipatIa Village, Chowdepalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District. {R-2 and R-3 being minors, rep by their mother natural Guardian) ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. K.Lakshmi, W/o.K.Obulesu, Major, Transport Operator, R/o.D.No.1641-A, Uma Nagar, Old Town, Anantapur Town, Anantapur District. 2. The United India Insurance Company, Anantapur Branch, lep by its Manager, Anantapur. ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri N.Aswartha Narayana (No representation) Counsel for the Respondent No.2; Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu The Court made the following: APHC010009652008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the twenty third day of June, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. BhanumathI M.A.C.M.A No. 2707 of 2008 Between: Peddadaka Manjula & Others ...Appellants and K.Lakshmi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants: I.D. Kodanda Rami Reddy Counsel for the respondents: I.P. Ramanjaneyulu 2.N. Aswartha Narayana The Court made the following: BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008 i; JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree, dated 19.09.2006, in O.P.No.21/2005 the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The claimants are the legal representatives of P.Madhusudhan Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who while travelling in mini lorry bearing No.AP 02 U 4643 met with the accident and died. The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows; On 24.08.2003, at about 3.30 a.m at K.M.No.192/4 of National High Way No.07 of Itikalapadu village of Mahaboob Nagar District, the driver of the mini lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry on its back due to which, the deceased who was travelling in the mini lorry died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.48 of 2003 for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 I.P.C. was registered by the police of Manapadu P.S. The deceased was doing tomatoes business. He purchased tomatoes at Punganur and carried them in a mini lorry of the 1®* respondent to Hyderabad. After selling the same in the market, while he was returning to his native village in the same lorry, he died in the aforesaid accident. The cleaner, by name, Suresh, and driver, Venkataramana, who were sustained simple injuries. The deceased was 30 years old and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from his business and Rs.60,000/- per annum from agriculture. The claim was opposed by the insurance company / 2"^ respondent contending that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. on 2. in the mini lorry / ' / 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008 The 2"^^ respondent filed written statement stating that this respondent had insured a new Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 U 4643 under goods carrying commercial vehicle package policy and the was in force from 09.09.2002 to 08.09.2003 and that the liability of this respondent, if any, is borne by the terms and conditions of the policy issued by it. The other contentions raised by the claimants were all denied. 3. same On behalf of the claimants, the 1®* claimant was examined PW1, the cleaner of the vehicle was examined as PW2 and Exs.M to A11 were marked. 4. as For Claimants: EX.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R. Certified copy of inquest report. Certified copy of Post Mortem Certificate. Certified copy of M.V.I’s report. Certified copy of charge sheet. Bunch of bills issued by K.M.R. Tomato Commission Mandi, Madanapalle. 3 pocket note books in which supply of milk to the milk collection centre are noted. Pattadar pass book in the name of 4'*^ petitioner. T.C. of PW1. Voter identity card of 4“^ petitioner. Voter identity card of 5*^ petitioner. EX.A2 EX.A3 Ex.A4 EX.A5 EX.A6 EX.A7 EX.A8 Ex.A9 EX.A10 Ex.A11 For respondents: EX.B1 Copy of policy. 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008 5. The 1 respondent remained ex parte. On behalf of 2 respondent, B. Venugopal, was examined as RW1 and copy of the policy is marked as Ex.B1. nd 6. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal assessed the total amount of compensation payable at Rs.3,72,500/- and awarded interest @ 7.5% p.a., payable from the date of petition, i.e., 27.01.2005, till the date of realization. However, the compensation was granted only against the 1®‘ respondent while dismissing the claim against the 2 the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of a gratuitous passenger. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased, while returning from Hyderabad, was travelling along with empty boxes in the lorry after selling the tomatoes carried in the same boxes. nd respondent on 7. To prove the contention of the claimants, they relied on the evidence of PW2 who is the cleaner of the said vehicle who deposed that the deceased was carrying empty boxes in the lorry. The Tribunal noted that there is no reference of empty boxes in Ex.AI and A2 and that the claimants have not taken any steps to get the trip sheet or the way bill to prove their contention. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW2 stating that it is parrot-wise evidence. 8. Aggrieved by the award, dismissing the claim against the 2 respondent, this appeal was filed by the claimants. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that under package policy, the insurance company collected premium of Rs.75/- towards NFPP (non-fare paid passenger) for would cover the risk of the deceased in the present case. nd the one passenger and it 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008 t On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 / Insurance Company contended that the deceased was not a non-fare paying passenger and that the claimants developed the case that he was travelling along with empty boxes though it was not initially stated in Exs.M and A2 or in the claim petition. He further submitted that even in package policy, no passenger can be allowed to travel in commercial goods vehicle. 10. That apart, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on low side. 11. The learned counsel for appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others'' in paragraph No. 13 it was held that: 12. “13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e., 12 years, the principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others [(2014) 1 SCC 244] are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs.30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000/- and if we add Rs.50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the judgment ^2022 Live Law (SC) 841 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707 of 2008 of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs.2,00,000/- up to the value of the claim petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking the computation made hereinabove, the total compensation as Rs.5,00,000/- and amount as awarded by the High Court i.e., Rs.2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs.3,00,000/-”. to Hence, we determine on reducing the 13. The mam challenge to the claim is the liability of the insurance company in view of its contention that the unauthorized deceased was an passenger jn a goods vehicle whereas the claimants stated that the premium was paid for one non-fare paying passenger and the same would cover the risk of the deceased. As rightly contended by'the claimants premium for non-fare paid passenger was collected and it is not shown that any other person made a claim under the said category. Even if the deceased was considered as a gratuitous passenger, his case wouid be covered by non-fare paid passenger and the liabiiity wouid arise under the poiicy marked as Ex.B1 policy under Ex.BI is ■ Since the a comprehensive policy and premium for NFPP was received, the liability cannot be disowned by the insurance company. 14. Insofar as the quantum of Tribunal adequately awarded compensation interference. compensation is concerned, as the the same does not require 15. in the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2707of2008 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any. shall stand closed. SDI- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. Tribunal-cum-ll Additional (With records) One CC to Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate [OPUCj One CC to Sr P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati. Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. BSV AL HIGH COURT DATED;23/06/2025 g 0 2 AUG 2025 ^ . Current Section 69 JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA NO. 2707 OF 2008 V x ) % V 1 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS