APHC010425682008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the twenty first The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited M. Hemalatha and others Counsel for the appellant: 1. V. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: 1. Harinath Reddy Soma The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) twenty first day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3261 of 2008 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant and M. Hemalatha and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the respondents: Harinath Reddy Soma following: [3311] day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3261 of 2008 ...Appellant ...Respondents 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3261 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.04.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.509 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 02. The appellant is the respondent No.2, the respondents No.1 to 4 are the petitioners and the respondent No.5 is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows: a. On 23.06.2003, while N.Chenchurami Reddy (deceased) was proceeding to home on his motor cycle bearing No.ADC 4727, near Mukkoti on Tirupati-Chandragiri Road, a tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 03 V 5093 and AP 03 V 5095 were driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased sustained head injury, besides other injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries on 28.06.2003 while being treated in S.V.I.M.S Hospital, Tirupati, after taking treatment initially in S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati. The deceased was aged 40 years and working as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in A.N.G.R.U., Tirupati for a monthly salary of Rs.7,554/-. He had agricultural lands at Sanambatla Village and earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. The petitioner No.1 is his wife, the petitioners No.2 and 3 are their minor children and the petitioner No.4 is his mother and are entitled to compensation. b. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3261 of 2008 c. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments and its liability to pay compensation. d. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and the following exhibits were marked: Ex.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R. in crime No.78/2003 of Chandragiri Police Station. Ex.A2 Certified copy of inquest report. Ex.A3 Certified copy of post-mortem certificate. Ex.A4 Certified copy of charge sheet filed under Section 304(A) of I.P.C., in C.C.No.548/2003. Ex.A5 Salary certificate of the deceased. Ex.A6 10(1) and 10(3) account in the name of the deceased. e. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and the following documents were marked: Ex.B1 Policy copy issued by the respondent No.2 company. Ex.B2 Extract of driving licence issued by R.T.A., Tirupati. and the following exhibits were marked through witness: Ex.X1 Attested copy of last pay drawn particulars issued by A.O., College of Veterinary Sciences, Tirupati. Ex.X2 Promotion order dated 13.06.2003 of the deceased. Ex.X3 Pay particulars of the deceased. Ex.X4 Attested true copy of the particulars of the service register. Ex.X5 True copy of driving license of K.Eswaraiah, issued by R.T.A., Tirupati. Ex.X6 Accident register extract. 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3261 of 2008 Ex.X7 Case sheet issued by S.V.I.M.S., Tirupati. f. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer, basing on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and in the absence of the evidence of the driver of the tractor and trailer and upon considering the suggestion given by R.W.3 that sedatives would be given to the deceased before bringing him to the hospital and such sedatives would smell like alcohol and further, RW3 expressed that she could not say whether the deceased was given first aid before bringing him to the hospital. g. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of compensation of Rs.9,54,376/- within which Rs.9,09,376/- is for the loss of income, Rs.15,000/- is for the loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1, Rs.10,000/- for the funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- for the loss of estate. The Tribunal awarded interest @7.5% p.a. payable from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal directed both the respondents to pay the compensation. 04. Aggrieved by the award and decree this appeal was filed by the respondent No.2 contending that the accident was said to have occurred on 23.06.2003, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 28.06.2003 and there was discrepancy in the version of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, but, the Tribunal failed to give consideration to the independent evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 or the documentary evidence filed by the respondent No.2, by giving credit only to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. It was further contended that income of the deceased was taken on high side and that the Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3261 of 2008 evidence of R.W.3 regarding the drunken condition of the deceased which was the cause of the accident. 05. The learned counsel for the appellant / respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the claim petition ought to have been dismissed as the deceased was in a drunken state and caused the accident and that the accident was also reported to the police with inordinate delay just to make a wrong claim, but the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence in this regard and erroneously fastened liability on the transfer of the tractor and trailer. He further submitted that the calculation of compensation was also erroneous as explained in the grounds of the appeal. 06. The main grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal erroneously held that the driver of the tractor-trailer was at fault causing the accident and totally ignored the condition of the deceased, who was drunk, in spite of the ample evidence placed. In this regard, it is also relevant that the F.I.R. was lodged long after the accident. On a reading of the evidence of R.W.3 and the other facts narrated above, it is clear that the Tribunal was in error in totally fastening the liability on the driver of the tractor-trailer, while completely supporting the contention of the deceased. The factual situation, as per the evidence, indicates that the deceased was also liable in contributing to the accident because of his drunken state. On presumptions and assumptions, without there being any positive evidence that sedatives were administered to the deceased, the Tribunal came to the conclusion in favour of the petitioner insofar as the condition of the deceased is concerned. The accident was caused to due to the contributory negligence of both the deceased and the driver of the tractor-trailer. 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3261 of 2008 Accordingly, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be apportioned between the deceased and the respondent. Therefore, the respondents are liable only to the extent of 50% of amount of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal. 07. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court does not see any reasons to interfere with same. 08. While granting the interim stay, this Court directed on 30.10.2007, the appellant to deposit 1/3rd of the amount awarded by the Tribunal together with proportionate costs and interest within six (6) weeks from the date of the order and permitted the claimants to withdraw the same without furnishing any security, subject to the condition, if any, imposed by the Tribunal. If such amount was deposited by the appellant and received by the claimants, the balance amount out of the 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the appellant within one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 09. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Date: 21.08.2025 NSM / RAR