IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY. THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 50 OF 2025 Between: M/s.National Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Vijayawada. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Bandia Nagamani, D/o.Sreenu, Hindu, aged 17 years. No Avocation, Vidyanagar. Jaggaiahpet Village & Mandal, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 2. Bandia Tirupathi Rao, S/o.Sreenu, Hindu, aged 14 years. No Avocation, Vidyanagar, Jaggaiahpet Village and Mandal, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 3. Bandia Suvartha, D/o.Sreenu, Hindu, aged 12 years. No Avocation, Vidyanagar, Jaggaiahpet Village and Mandal, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 4. Bandia Mounika, D/o.Sreenu, Hindu, aged 9 years. No Avocation, Vidyanagar, Jaggaiahpet Village and Mandal, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. All the respondents being Minors represented Natural Guardian next friend Peternal Grand Mother i.e., Bandia Pasimalemma W/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Cooli, D.No.5-339, Vidyanagar, Jaggaiahpet Village and Mandal, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. ...Respondent No.1 to 4/Ciaim Petitioners 5. Mallela Venkat Reddy, S/o.Not Known, Hindu, aged 43 years, D.No. 1- 153, Dondapadu Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...Respondent No.5/Respondent No.1 Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, aggrieved by the award and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IInd Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in O.P No.561 of 2009 dated 21.06.2012. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Challa Ajay Kumar for the respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. Three CD Copies To, SAM sree HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.50 of 2025 0 ^ APR 2025 mn Current Section £espATC«^^ a v* DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act by the award and decree of the Motor Accidents Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in O.P No.561 of 2009 dated 21.06.2012. 50 OF 2025 1988, aggrieved Claims Tribunal-cum-IInd Between: M/s.National Insurance Company Limited Manager, Divisional Office, Vijayawada. Rep. by its Divisional ...Appellant/Respondent No.2 AND 1. Bandia Nagamani, D/o.Sreenu, Hindu Vidyanagar, Jaggaiahpet Village & Mandal, District. aged 17 years. No Avocation, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna 2. Bandia Tirupathi Rao, S/o.Sreenu, Hindu, aged 14 Vidyanagar, Jaggaiahpet Village and Mandal District. 3. Bandia Suvartha, D/o.Sreenu, Hindu, Vidyanagar, Jaggaiahpet Village and Mandal District. years. No Avocation, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna sged 12 years. No Avocation, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna 4. Bandla Mounika. D/o Sreenu Hinri Vidyanaga, Jaggaiahpet Village and T d ^ District. ® ^ ^ 'Jaggaiahpet, Krishna All the friend respondents being Minors Peternal W/o.Venkateswarlu Village and Mandal represented Natural Guardian Bandla next Grand Mother ii.e., Hindu, Cooli D No 5 3^0 v/ h l,„n ■ K V'dyanagar, Jaggaiahpet Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. -Respondent No.1 to 4/Claim Petitioners aged 43 years, D.No. n Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5. Mallela Venkat Reddy S/o.Not Known, Hindu 153, Dondapadu Village, Mellacheruv 1- •-Respondent No.S/Respondent No.1 Counsel for the Appellant; Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: : Sri N Rama Krishna ■ Ajay Kumar +APHC011549322012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] FRIDAY .THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 50/2025 Between: M/s.National Insurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND BandIa Nagamani and 4 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.N RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: 2 MACMA.No.50 of 2025 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 21.06.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.561/2009 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada, awarding compensation of Rs.3,84,000/-, directing both the respondents, including the appellant/2'''^ respondent, to pay the said amount with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment due to the death of deceased Bandia Guravamma, who is their natural mother, with joint and several liability. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows; 02. The father of the claimants died. The mother of the claimants died in the accident occurred on 14.11.2008 at about 8.30 A.M., when the deceased and others were engaged in unloading coal from a railway wagon at Jaggaiahpet railway station and the driver of the offending proclainer bearing JCB No.JS 80 in a rash and negligent manner hit the bucket of JCB against the chest of the deceased resulting in serious injuries for which she was shifted to Jaggaiahpet government hospital and a case in Crime No. 119/2008 was registered and later she succumbed to the injuries. The claimants contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as a coolie and as a result of her death, they lost her support. The petition was opposed mainly on the contention that the insured vehicle is not a motor vehicle and the policy covering the JCB is a special contingency policy. That apart, the other grounds raised by the claimants were also opposed. 3 MACMA.No.50 of 2025 On behalf of the claimants, the maternal grandmother of the claimants represented as a guardian and was examined as PW1 and PW2/G.Ramesh was examined as eye-witness. Exhibits N0.AI to A4 are marked on behalf of the petitioner reads as follows: Ex.A1 - Attested copy of the FIR dated 14.11.2008 Ex.A2 - Attested copy of the Inquest report dated 14.11.2008. Ex.AS - Attested copy of the postmortem report dated 14.11.2008. Ex.A4 - Copy of Insurance policy. The 1®* respondent remained ex parte. The 2"^^ respondent before the Tribunal i.e., insurance company examined its officer as RWIA/.S.Durga Prasad and the following documents are marked on his behalf: Ex.BI - House hold card. Ex.B2 - Insurance policy. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding Rs.3,84,000/- payable with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment with joint and several liability of the respondents. Aggrieved by the award, the 2^"^ respondent/insurance company preferred this appeal reiterating the contentions that the proclainer is not a motor vehicle, that the policy of insurance issued does not cover the claim and that the amount of earnings assessed by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month is on high side. 4 MACMA.No.50 of 2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No representation for the respondents No.1 to 4/claimants. The 5^^ respondent/1®' respondent did not contest even before the Tribunal. The definition of the motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as follows; “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters.” As can be seen from the above definition, the JCB would definitely fall within the definition of motor vehicle. The Tribunal also rightly came to the conclusion. Therefore, the observation of the Tribunal in this regard does not require any interference. Insofar as, the policy is concerned, it was also held by the Tribunal that it is a policy covering the risk of third party. There is no error in the observation made by the Tribunal in this regard as well. Thus, on both counts, the appellant has no case to challenge the award. Insofar as, the quantum of monthly income is concerned, it was also fixed at a reasonable rate, though notionally in the absence of proof of actual income. In the rest of the steps taken by the Tribunal in calculating the deduction towards personal expenditure and applying multiplier, no errors were committed. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 5 MACMA.No.50 of 2025 Thus, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 08. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER > 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri N Rama Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies To SAM sree HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.50 of 2025 DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A.