APHC010833292015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 353 OF 2025 Between: 1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Anantapuram (Insurer of the Auto bearing No.AP-02- Y-4977 Vide policy No.050904/31/11/01/00007061 Valid from 18.01.2012 to 17.01.2013 ...Petitioner AND 1. Shaik Malin Bee alias S Malina, W/o. late Mahaboob Basha, aged about 47 years Muslim, Housewife, R/o. Pilligundla Colony Ananthapuram Town, Anantapuram Dist. 2. P Sreenivasulu, S/o. P.Venkata Ramudu Major, Hindu, D.No. 1-7-143, Bakarapuram Pulivendula Town, Kadapa District (Registered Owner of the Auto bearing NO.AP-04-Y-4977) 3. S Ahamed Basha, S/o. S.Ghouse Peer Major, Muslim, D.No.9- 504, Agadi Street Kadapa, Kadapa District (Insured of the Auto bearing NO.AP-04-Y-4977) 2 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.353 OF 2025 ...Respondents Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toThe Appellant begs to submit this Memorandum of M.A.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal aggrieved by the Order and Decree in O.P.No. 457 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I II Addl. District Judge, FTC, Anantapuram, dt. 14.05.2015 IA NO: 1 OF 2015(MACMAMP 4195 OF 2015 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 condone the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. IA NO: 2 OF 2015(MACMAMP 4365 OF 2015 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 to grant stay of execution of the order and decree passed in OP.no. 457 of 2013 on the file of the MACT-cum-III Additional District Judge, (FTC) Ananthapuram, dt. 14/05/2015, pending disposal of the main Appeal Counsel for the Petitioner: A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondents: P ANIMI REDDY The Court made the following order: 3 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.353 OF 2025 JUDGMENT:- The present appeal is filed challenging the order dated 14.05.2015 passed in O.P.No.457 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, FTC, Anantapuram. 2. This appeal is instituted under section 163(A) by Insurance Company who was 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. 3. Parties herein are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The deceased while travelling in auto bearing No.AP-04-Y- 4977, on 31.03.2012 at about 1:30pm., met with an accident on account of the tractor dashing the auto resulting in deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Area Hospital, Kadiri and later GGH, Anathapuramu and succumbed. The deceased was stated to be minor aged about 14 years. The mother of the deceased filed O.P. before the Tribunal claiming for compensation. On account of the accident, crime came to be registered vide FIR No.9 of 2012 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC against the 2nd respondent/driver of Tractor. Claim came to be opposed by only 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, denying the manner in which the accident was occurred. Further stand was also taken that the driver of the Auto did not possess valid driving license, therefore, the same constituted the violation of conditions of policy and therefore sought for dismissal of the claim. The 1st and 2nd respondent i.e., owner of the Auto and driver remained ex-parte. 4 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.353 OF 2025 3. Based on the pleadings on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: i. Whether deceased Shaik Shamiullah, received injuries and died in motor vehicle accident on 31.03.2012 at about 1-30pm, near panchayat office while going from Kummaravandlapalli to Kadiri due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing No. AP-04-Y-4977. ii. Whether the petitioner is entitle to receive compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? iii. To what relief? 4. Insofar as the 1st issue was concerned, the Tribunal found that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor. However, as claim to be came laid under Section163(A) of the Act, the claimant was not required to plead and establish wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner/driver of vehicle involved in the accident. 5. Insofar as the 2nd issue was concerned, the income of deceased was assessed as Rs.30,000/- per year by following judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others1 and accordingly he computed the income after applying the multiplier of 13 and arrived at a sum of Rs,3,90,000/- as pecuniary loss. Further the amount of Rs.50,000/- came to be awarded under conventional heads, 1 2013 ACJ 2594 5 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.353 OF 2025 thereby the amount of Rs.4,40,000/- was awarded. Assailing the said present appeal is filed. 6. Heard Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Ahimi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the liability on the Insurance Company as the driver of auto did not possess any valid license. She further contended that the amount determined towards compensation is excessive and that the Tribunal ought not to have ordered recovery of the amount only against the Insurance Company, as the accident involved both vehicles, liability has to be fixed on the owner of the respective vehicles. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. Perused the record. 9. Admittedly the accident has occurred on 31.03.2012, while the deceased was travelling in the auto. The accident occurred on account of dashing of auto by tractor. The present claim has been instituted against the insurer of the auto under Section 163(A) of the Act. The Tribunal while appreciating the quantum of claim being made under section 163(A), observed that for any such claim under aforesaid provision there is no need to plead or establish wrongful act or negligence of the owner of the vehicle involved in accident and involvement of the vehicle is enough. Further, it has also given specific findings that as the respondent/Insurance company has taken a defence that the 6 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.353 OF 2025 driver of auto did not possess any valid driving license, it is incumbent upon the insurance company to prove the same by examining the motor vehicle inspector, driver of auto or the concerned RTA officials to prove that there doesn’t exist any driving license. As the Insurance Company has not taken any such steps to prove the same, the Tribunal recorded finding that the Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden of proof, therefore, cannot escape the liability. The aforesaid finding also was supported by the judgment rendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Munagada Chinni Kumari and others2. 10. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has tried to canvas the very same plea, nothing has been pointed out to show that there was any evidence let in on behalf of the appellant in the aforesaid direction. Therefore, this Court is not convinced with the said contention to differ with the findings rendered and recorded by the Tribunal. 11. Coming to the aspect of the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal, notional income of the deceased was taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum, considering his age of 14 years by following the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others, as claimant/mother of the deceased being aged 45 years multiplier 13 came to be applied and compensation was arrived after adding up Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads and thereby awarded an amount of Rs.4,40,000/-. 2 2013 ACJ 2560 7 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.353 OF 2025 12. The Tribunal followed the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in computing the income of deceased on notional basis. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the same is excessive, nothing has been demonstrated by way of evidence or otherwise, to show that the judgment has no application to the facts of the present case in computing the annual income of the minor deceased. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 13. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight (08) weeks and the respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same, accordingly, in terms of the award. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 29.07.2025 LSP 8 CGR,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.353 OF 2025 223 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 353 OF 2025 29.07.2025 LSP