APHC010525242021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 111/2022 Between: 1. SMT.GADIRAJU JANAKI, W/O. VENKATA RAMANA RAIU AGED 71 YEARS, R/ O. D. NO. 170 MAIN ROAD GUNDEPALLI @ CHODAVARAM (EAST), NALLAJERLA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI ...APPELLANT AND 1. PERUMALLA MANI, S/O. PERUMALLA AGED 53 YEARS, R/O. KURABANDULA, GURAVAN PAPIREDDIPARTTI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE. DRIVER- CUM-OWNER LORRY BEARING NO., TN 30 R 3263 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PAPASAHEB ROAD ELURU, WEST GODAVARI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toAggrieved by the order and decree dated 18.09.2020 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 84 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal- Cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in so far as it went against to the appellants, the appellants beg to prefer this appeal 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 may be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of the Judgment and Decree order dated 18.09.2020 passed in MVOP No.84 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge,West Godavari,Eluru in the interest of justice and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.111 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Present appeal is preferred by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of award passed in M.V.O.P. No.84 of 2017, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. Initially claim was laid on account of death of son of the claimant for an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and material Available on record, awarded an amount Rs.8,71,400/-. Assailing the said award to the extent of not granting the compensation as claimed, present appeal is preferred. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) The appellant is mother of deceased. Deceased along with one Mr.Penmetsa Bangarraju, while proceeding to Ananthapalli 2 CGR, J MACMA. No.111 of 2022 Village on motorcycle, lorry coming in high speed and proceeding towards Rajahmundry dashed the motorcycle from behind, deceased who was sitting as pillion rider fell down and sustained head injury and thereafter, while undergoing treatment, succumbed on the same day. Thereafter, police registered case vide Crime No.117/2016 for offences under Sections 304-A and 338 I.P.C. The deceased claimed to be in the business of prawn seed supply and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and he was aged about 31 years when accident occurred. As the driver of lorry dashed the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner, the claim has been laid against driver – cum – owner of lorry and also the insurer of it. (b) On behalf of petitioner, claimant was examined as P.W.1, Penmetsa Bangarraju, who was riding motorcycle was examined as P.W.2 and friend of deceased was examined as P.W.3, who incidentally was also owner of prawn ponds and marked Exs.A1 to A8. 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying allegations made in the claim petition, and marked Ex.B1, which is insurance policy and none were examined on his behalf. 3 CGR, J MACMA. No.111 of 2022 (c) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, Tribunal has framed following issues: (i) Whether Gadiraju Srinivasa Raju deceased in case died in Motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TN 30R 3263? (ii) Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for so against whom? (iii) To what relief? (d) Regarding the 1st issue, the Tribunal has concluded that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry, which hit motorcycle from behind. Insofar as 2nd issue is concerned, though the deceased claimed to be earning Rs.20,000/- per month, as there was no cogent evidence in support of the same, the Tribunal has adopted notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month and accordingly, determined the compensation. 4. Heard Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for 2nd respondent – insurance company. 4 CGR, J MACMA. No.111 of 2022 5. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that income of deceased was wrongly arrived at as Rs.6,000/- on notional basis when claim was made for Rs.20,000/- and the Tribunal has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.3, who was the owner of fish ponds speaking of the earnings made by deceased. Except the said issue, no other grounds are raised or argued. 6. Per contra, on the other hand, learned counsel for respondent insurance company submitted that the claimant except for making a self-statement and averment in the claim petition and in the chief examination of P.W.1 as well as P.W.3, no material has been placed on record to even remotely suggest that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Neither income tax returns nor bank statement nor any other cogent evidence has been placed on record in support of the same, therefore, Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that in absence of any other documentary evidence, monthly income has been assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis, which is as per the guidelines of Labour Department, therefore, the said finding cannot be said to be perverse. 5 CGR, J MACMA. No.111 of 2022 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 8. The question that falls for consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity or perversity and need interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 9. The earnings of the deceased were claimed as Rs.20,000/- per month. Though there is an assertion made in claim statement and as well as in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, no other piece of evidence has been produced to support the same. It is their pleaded case that deceased was doing prawn seed business and that he also supplied the same to P.W.3. The Tribunal has rendered finding that, except self-serving statements of these witnesses, there is no other evidence to test the earnings as claimed. Besides, it was also observed that in the absence of any Income Tax returns or even business license, it cannot be believed that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. This Court does not find any infirmity with said findings. The income has to be assessed and determined based on documentary evidence, particularly when it is pleaded that the deceased was in business but not employment. In the absence of any other 6 CGR, J MACMA. No.111 of 2022 evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed income at Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis, which cannot be found fault with. 10. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to disturb the findings recorded by the Tribunal as the same do not suffer from any infirmity and perversity. Accordingly, this MACMA stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 23.07.2025 SS