APHC010488442004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Third day of September, Two Thousand And Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3084 of 2004 Between: Kukkadapu Subba Rao ...Appellant and Vempati Raghunadham and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. Y.V. Ravi Prasad Counsel for the respondents: 1. T.S. Rayalu The Court made the following: 2 C.M.A.No.3084 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and the decree dated 23.01.2003 in O.P.No.612 of 2000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru. 02. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the claims tribunal. 03. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in an accident occurred on 29.12.1999 at 01.30 P.M., while he was travelling in a mini lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 3959 belonging to the respondent No.1 and insured by the respondent No.2 under a valid policy subsisting as on the date of the accident. The claimant contended that he was a supervisor employed in Sri Venkateswara Rice and Oil Producers, represented by Proprietor, Gudimetla Raghavaiah; that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-, besides receiving batta, commission, T.A., and D.A. and thus, he was earning Rs.6,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month; and that on the fateful day, he was travelling in the mini lorry along with R.R.B. Oil, 3,960 Kgs (=3.96 M.Ts.) from Gowthami Solvent Oils Limited, Tanuku to Sri Venkateswara Rice and Oil Producers, Tiruvuru in the capacity of supervisor and followed the lorry as the owner of the goods; and further that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry. He lodged the complaint with the police. It was registered as case in Crime No.119 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 338 and 279 of I.P.C. on 29.12.1999 at 03.00 P.M. The right leg of the claimant was amputated up to knee. He was treated in the Government Hospital, Eluru and also in the Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada. 04. The claim was opposed by the insurance company by filing a written statement, while the respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The insurance company contended that the averments regarding the accident, occupation 3 C.M.A.No.3084 of 2004 and earning of the claimant and the medical treatment and the expenses in the petition were not proven correct. It was stated that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive and the claimant was not entitled to interest on general damages falling under the category of non-pecuniary damages. 05. The claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 who is an eye-witness. He marked Exhibits A1 to A38. On behalf of the respondent No.2, a Senior Assistant was examined as R.W.1 and a copy of the policy of insurance was marked as Ex.B1. 06. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry. This finding has not been challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal. The Tribunal assessed quantum of compensation payable at Rs.2,48,000/- and awarded interest @12% from the date of petition till the date of realization, however exonerated the respondent No.2 from liability by holding that the claimant (wrongly described as the deceased) was travelling in the goods vehicle being the owner of the said vehicles (sic vehicle), basing on the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Asha Rani and others1. 07. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was filed by the claimant challenging the dismissal of the claim against the respondent No.2 and seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 08. Sri G.Bhanu Sai Prasad Varma, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against the insurance company with incorrect observations of facts and law. He further submitted that the evidence placed by the claimant clearly shows that the claimant was travelling as a supervisor working for Sri Venkateswara Rice and Oil Producers along with the oil in the 1 (2001) 6 SCC 724 4 C.M.A.No.3084 of 2004 said lorry, yet, the Tribunal concluded that he was travelling in the goods vehicle, being the owner of the said vehicles, which is not the case of the claimant or the insurance company. He further submitted that the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier applicable to person aged between 40 to 45 years, without having any evidence in that regard and against the evidence on file showing the age of the claimant as 35 years old. 09. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the claimant failed to establish that he was working as an employee and was entrusted with the goods of his employer allowing him to travel with the goods as an agent for his employer. He further submitted that the claimant was a mere unauthorized passenger boarding the vehicle enroute and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief against the insurance company. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation granted does not require interference to enhance any further as it is already excessive and that the rate of interest granted is also on very high side. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal with costs. 10. Insofar as the question of liability is concerned, the nature of status of the claimant while travelling in the mini lorry is relevant, since the fact that he was travelling in the said vehicle is not in dispute as can be seen from the cross-examination of P.W.1 and the evidence of R.W.1. Either in the cross- examination of P.W.1 or in the evidence of R.W.1, there is no denial about the oil being carried in the lorry at the relevant time. The claimant filed way bill, delivery challan and weighment report under Ex.A14 to A16 which further support the contention of the claimant regarding the goods being carried in the vehicle. It is important to mention that the accident occurred at 01.30 P.M., on 29.12.1999 and it was reported to the police at 03.00 P.M. on the same day by the claimant himself narrating all the facts as stated in the claim petition and his evidence. The time for manipulation is minimal. That apart, in evidence, the claimant filed his salary certificate under Ex.A19 and termination certificate under Ex.A20. In the evidence of R.W.1 or in the cross-examination of P.W.1, 5 C.M.A.No.3084 of 2004 there is no denial of genuineness of the documents filed by the claimant. All this evidence clearly indicate that the claimant was an employee and was travelling along with the goods in the vehicle as claimed by him. The fact that the respondent No.1 was the owner of the mini lorry and insured the same with the respondent No.2 are admitted by the respondent No.2 by filing Ex.B1 and in the evidence of R.W.1. As such, the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant was the owner of the vehicles is obviously a serious error. As an agent of the owner of the goods (oil), being an employee working with the owner of the goods, the claimant was travelling in the mini lorry at the relevant time. As per Section 147 of the M.V. Act, 1988, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the owner and an agent of the owner of the goods being carried in an insured vehicle. Thus, the insurance company is also liable jointly and severally with the owner of the insured vehicle to pay compensation to the claimant. So, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the respondent No.2 / insurance company is liable to be set aside and the claim against the respondent No.2 shall be allowed. The request of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, made at this juncture, to give liberty to the respondent No.2 to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle cannot be accepted as the insurance company is statutorily liable. 11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the error committed by the Tribunal in fixing the multiplier by considering the age of the claimant between 40 to 45 is error apparent on the record as there is no justification from the evidence to arrive at such conclusion as against the other reliable evidence placed by the claimant and not disputed by the respondent No.2. There is consistent evidence that the claimant was aged about 35 years at that time. As such the relevant multiplier applicable to the present case is 16. As the claimant suffered permanent disability due to amputation and loss of his occupation evidenced by Ex.A20, compensation may be calculated at 100% loss of future earnings if he has no capacity to earn by any other means. The Tribunal took the disability at 60%, and applied multiplier 15. 6 C.M.A.No.3084 of 2004 12. Though there is amputation, which resulted in partial permanent disability, since the claimant was a supervisor and can earn by other means such as a job / work involving less mobility and doesn’t require both legs, taking the disability at 60% for assessing future loss of earnings is justified. Therefore, the total amount of compensation granted shall be increased by Rs.24,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,72,000/-. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, being not challenged, does not require interference. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by raising the amount of compensation from Rs.2,48,000/- to Rs.2,72,000/- (two lakh seventy two thousand rupees only) and fixing the liability on the respondent No.2 along with respondent No.1 with joint and several liability. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Date: 03.09.2025 NSM 7 C.M.A.No.3084 of 2004 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3084 of 2004 Date: 03.09.2025 NSM