APHC010017652019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: United India Insurance Co Ltd KothapalliTulasi and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 29/2019 United India Insurance Co Ltd AND KothapalliTulasi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): T NAGARJUNA REDDY IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 29/2019 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 The Court made the following Judgment: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the appellant/United Insurance Company Limited (in short ‘Insurance Company’), challenging the Award, dated 15.10.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.92 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty (in short ‘the Tribunal). 2. The appellant/Insurance Company herein is the 2nd respondent, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants and 4th respondent herein is 1st respondent before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 14.09.2016 in the afternoon, K.Harshavardhan (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) went to Indiranagar to give meals to his uncle, who was doing mason work at Indiranagar. After that, he was returning to his home on his scooty bearing registration No.AP04-AY-8264 through RIMS ring road. When he reached Balijapalli cross, en-route at about 02:15 P.M., respondent No.1-driver of the ambulance bearing No.AP21-TW-7677 drove the ambulance in a rash & negligent manner and without blowing horn dashed the scooty of the deceased. Resulting which, the deceased 3 fell on ground and sustained bleeding injuries on his head and internal injuries to the body and fell unconscious. At that point of time, the cousin of the deceased namely Sri Sunil Kumar, who witnessed the occurrence of the accident, stopped his bike and rushed to the scene of offence and noticed that the deceased sustained multiple injuries and observed the ambulance and identified the driver. He shifted the injured to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, in an auto for treatment. But, the Duty Medical Officer of RIMS, Kadapa advised them to take the injured to any higher hospital, as his condition was critical. Sri Sunil Kumar with the help of Sri Ramesh Babu and Sri C.Subbarayudu, took the injured to Vellore in a private ambulance, for better treatment. When they reached near Guvvalacheruvu Ghat, the deceased died en-route due to bleeding injuries. Later, he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. On the complaint, case was registered in Crime No.196/2016 by the C.K.Dinne Mandal Police against the driver of the ambulance under Section 304-A of IPC. 5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a detailed written statement and opposed the claim of the claimants and submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the ambulance bearing No.AP21-TW-7677 and the deceased, as the accident occurred due to collusion of two vehicles. The rider of the motor cycle did not have valid driving license at the time of accident. 4 The 1st respondent/driver of the ambulance insured his vehicle with the Insurance Company under miscellaneous package policy and the driver of the ambulance is having valid driving license at the time of the accident to prove the same. The claimants have to prove the age, income and profession of the deceased, as the deceased was a student studying B.Sc. 1st year. 6. Respondent No.1-driver of the ambulance also filed written statement in the same lines of respondent No.2. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the deceased met with the road accident occurred on 14.09.2016 at about 02:15 P.M., near Balijapalli cross, RIMS to Rayachoty Bypass ring road, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District, the driver of R1 offending ambulance bearing No.AP21-TW-7677, insurance with R2 and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and without taking any due care and dashed against the deceased motor cycle, as a result of which he sustained severe bleeding injuries and succumbed to injuries as contended by the claimants? 2. Whether the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family prior to the accident as contended by the claimants? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief? 8. On behalf of the claimants, 1st claimant/Mother was examined as P.W.1. They also examined one eye-witness as P.W.2. 5 Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documents were marked. 9. The Tribunal having observed that the 1st respondent/driver of the ambulance was insured with the 2nd respondent, which was in force as on the date of the occurrence of the incident, fixed the liability jointly and severally against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and awarded Rs.14,40,000/-. 10. Aggrieved by the said liability, the appellant/Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 11. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal below erroneously granted excess compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal below, without observing the fact that the deceased was only a student studying B.Sc. 1st year, fixed the income as Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- per month. He also contends that the Tribunal below ought to have apportioned the contributory negligence equally on the part of driver of the ambulance and the deceased, as the incident occurred due to negligence on the part of both the driver of the ambulance and as well as the deceased and as such, he prays to allow the appeal filed 6 by the appellant/Insurance Company by setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the deceased being 1st year B.Sc. student, has a bright future and would become an earning member of his family, if he would have been alive. He also contends that the incident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the ambulance, who drove the ambulance in a rash and negligent manner and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company. 14. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the award of the Tribunal below awarding compensation of Rs.14,40,000/- is on reasonable basis. 15. The Tribunal, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, gave finding that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/ambulance. As such the question of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased does not arise. 16. Now coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, it is an admitted fact that the Tribunal below fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month, notionally, as the deceased has earning capacity in future after completing his studies, and taken 7 40% of the notional income towards future income as the deceased died at the age of 19 years. 17. The Tribunal below, as held in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.,1, took the multiplier as 18, as the age of the deceased was 19 years as on the date of death and the deceased being 1st year B.Sc. student. 18. Admittedly, the deceased was not an earning member, but, as the deceased has earning capacity in future after completing studies, the Tribunal rightly fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month, notionally and also fixed 40% for future income. As the age of the deceased as on the date of death was 19 years, the Tribunal below rightly took the multiplier as 18, as per Sarla Varma’s case. The Tribunal below taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7000/- per month and awarding 40% towards future income, it would come to Rs.9,800/- [Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/- = Rs.9,800/-] and after deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenditure, it would come to [Rs.9,800/- - Rs.3,267/- = Rs.6,533/- per month] and accordingly arrived at the annual income of the deceased at Rs.6,533/- X 12 = Rs.78,396/-, after applying multiplier 18, it would come to Rs.14,11,128/- [Rs.78,396/- X 18]. In addition, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral & transportation 1 2009 ACJ 1295 SC 8 expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which comes to a total of Rs.14,41,128/-. But, the claimants therein have restricted their claim to Rs.14,40,000/- only. 19. Furthermore, the appellant/Insurance Company has not produced any documentary evidence denying the compensation claimed by the claimants. Considering that aspect, the Tribunal gave finding that the petitioners are entitled for the aforesaid compensation. 20. As already pointed out, the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/ambulance. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.14,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 21. Hence, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 04.04.2025 MDP