APHC010068312019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs:137/2019 and 67 of 2020 M.A.C.M.A.No.137 of 2019 Between: 1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,, REP. BY ITS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIDEVI COMPLEX, TILAK ROAD, TIRUPATHI., CHITTOOR DIST. ...APPELLANT AND 1. K DHROUPATHAMMA, W/O. LATE K.DHANANJAYA NAIDU,47 YRS.,CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. K OMPRAKASH, S/O.LATE K.DHANANJAYANAIDU, 23 YRS., 3. K KAVYA, D/O. LATE KDHANANJAYANAIDU, 19 YRS., 4. K PANDURANGA NAIDU, S/O. K.NAGULU NAIDU, 78 YRS., 5. K GOVINDAMMA, W/O. PANDURANGA NAIDU, 78 YRS., ALL ARE R/O. 1-60, KALROAD PALLI VILL AND POST., CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DIST. 2 6. T YUVARAJU, S/O. T.KRISHNAIAH, 27 YRS., DRIVER, D.NO. 2-43, JAMBUVARIPALLI, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 7. G RAJA GOPAL CHETTY, S/O. G.VENKAT RAMAIAH CHETTY, AGE-MAJOR,OWNER OF BOLERO, R/O. 2-9A, THAGGUVARIPALLI, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toaggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in MVOP. 232 of 2015. dated 15-10-2018, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT TIRUPATHI. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 stay of all further proceedings including the execution of decree and award dt. 15.10.2018 in MVOP.No. 232 of 2015, on the file of MACT-cum-V Addl District Judge at Tirupati, pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.67 of 2020 Between: 1. K. DHROUPATHAMMA, W/O. LATE K.DHANANJAYA NAIDU, AGED 52 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D NO.1-60, 3 KALROAD PALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. K.OMPRAKASH,, S/O LATE K.DHANANJAYA NAIDU, AGED 28 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O. D NO.1-60, KALROAD PALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. K.KAVYA,, D/O LATE K.DHANANJAYA NAIDU, AGED 24 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O. D NO.1-60, KALROAD PALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. K.PANDURANGA NAIDU, , S/O LATE K.NAGULU NAIDU, AGED 83 YEARS, R/O. D NO.1-60, KALROADPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. K. GOVINDHAMMA,, W/O K.PANDURANGA NAIDU, AGED 83 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D NO.1-60, KALROAD PALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. T YUVARAJAU, S/O T. KRISHNAIAH, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.2-43, JAMBURAVRI PALLI, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. G RAJA GOPAL CHETTY, S/O G.VENKATA RAMAIAH CHETTY, R/O. D.NO.2-9A, THAGGUVARI PALLI, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HOLDING OFFICE AT SRI DEVI COMPLEX, TILAK ROAD, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to call for entire records connected to Order dt. 15.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 232 of 2015 from tie file of the court of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims -cum- V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, examine the same and set it aside in so far as dismissal portion of compensation claim is concerned and allow the claim as eligible in the interests of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to condone the delay of 35 days in filing the MACMA against dec-ee and Judgment dt. 15.10.2018 Sassed in M.V.O.P No. 232 of 2015 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident CIE ims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA 2. 5 HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.137 of 2019 and 67 of 2020 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both the appeals arose out of the same award and decree dated 15.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, they are being disposed of by way of a common judgment. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.137 of 2019 is filed by the United India Insurance Company challenging the award and decree dated 15.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.13,46,500/- with proportionate costs and interest 6% p.a. payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally for the death of one K.Dhanunjaya Naidu in a motor accident that occurred on 02.03.2015. 3. Similarly, M.A.C.M.A.No.67 of 2020 is filed by the claimants against the award and decree dated 15.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims 6 Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 5. M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2015 is filed by the claimants under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one K.Dhananjaya Naidu, who is husband, father and son of petitioners 1 to 5, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 02.03.2015. On 02.03.2015 at about 07.00 p.m., when the deceased was walking on the left side of the road at Kalroad Palli Village on Chittoor-Tirupatimain road, the 1strespondent, the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP-03-BE-9127 belonging to 2ndrespondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from back side, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained severe head injuries. Immediately,he was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G.. Hospital, Tirupati, where he succumbed to injuries. A case in Crime No.27 of 2015 under Section 304A of IPC was registered against 1strespondent and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi. At the time 7 of accident, the deceased Dhanunjaya Naidu was aged about 49 years and was hale and healthy and he was working as milk delivery-cum-cash collection agent under one K.Subramanyam Naidu, who is proprietor of Sri Venkateswara Lorry Service and Heritage Milk Transport Contractor and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. He was also getting income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum on agriculture and used to contribute the same to his family members. On account of death of Dhananjaya Naidu, the 1stpetitioner lost her consortium at her young age of 47 years. Petitioner 2 and 3, who are children of the deceased, lost their paternal affection and petitioner 4 and 5, who are parents of the deceased, also lost their livelihood. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petition. 6. The 1st respondent filed his counter,interalia, stating that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He also disputed the manner of the accident and rashness and negligence on his part and the compensation claimed as excessive. 7. The 2nd Respondent filed his counter contending that the deceased suddenly crossed the road at the place of accident and 8 he was hit by some other vehicle at Kalroad palli village due to his sudden crossing of the road. The accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle but it was occurred due to hit by some other vehicle. He further contended that the offending vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent and if any compensation is to be paid, the 3rd respondent has to indemnify the same, as the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident. 8. The 3rd respondent filed separate and independent counter, while contending that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, denied the age and income of the deceased and also claimed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased due to his sudden crossing the road without following the vehicular traffic. 9. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1.Whether motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent being the driver of 2nd respondent vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-BE-9127 wherein Dhananjaya Naidu died? 2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased K.Dhananjay Naidu? 9 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation?if so what amount from whom? 4. To what relief?” 10. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 11. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.4 came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1strespondent and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased while crossing the road. In the absence of cogent evidence in proof of income of the deceased, though the claimants produced Ex.A.5-salary certificate of the deceased issued by the owner of the Heritage Milk transport contractor, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the minimum wages of the labourer prevailing at that time, fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum. The Tribunal also fixed his income on agriculture notionally at Rs.50,000/- and in total, the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.1,22,000/- (Rs.72,000/- + Rs.50,000/-). Since the 10 deceased was having five dependents, the Tribunal, following the principle laid down in SarlaVerma&others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 deducted 1/4th of his income from the notional income towards his personal savings, fixed his income at Rs.91,500/- per annum.Since the deceased was aged about 50 years as per the recitals of Ex.A.4-post mortem report, the Tribunal, applying multiplier of ‘13’ for the age group of 46 to 50 years as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (stated supra), assessed loss of dependency at Rs.11,89,500/- (91,500/- X 13). In addition thereto, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1500/- towards transportation charges and Rs.500/- towards damage of clothing. In all, the Tribunal awarded compensation Rs.13,46,500/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by respondent 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 1(2009) 6 SCC 121 11 12. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed MACMA No.137 of 2019, whereas the claimants filed MACMA No.67 of 2020. 13. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in MACMA No.137 of 2019 and Ms.NimmagaddaRevathi, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants in MACMA No.67 of 2020. 14. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Dhananjaya Naidu as he suddenly crossed the road and fell down on the road without following the traffic guidelines at the time of accident, as a consequence of which, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned 50% of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding compensation as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal erred in assessing notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month rather than Rs.15,000/- per month, as he was working as milk vendor 12 and was also earning income on his agriculture,and that the Tribunal erred in taking the aid of minimum wages prevailing at that time for the purpose of fixing his notional income. Further, the Tribunal grossly erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.3 corroborated by Ex.A.5 to prove that the deceased was working under P.W.3 as milk vendor and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal erred in not granting compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering to the appellants-claimants as per the ratio laid down in SarlaVerma&others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra). 16. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arises for consideration in these appeals,- 1) Whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? If so, whether the award needs to be modified to the extent of 50% negligence? 2) Whether the Tribunal is justified in award of just compensation? 17. Before adverting to the points arising for determination in this appeals, at the outset, it is not in dispute that the accident 13 occurred due to hitting of the deceased from back side in a rash and negligent manner by the 1st respondent-driver of the offending Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP-03-BE-9127belonging to the 2nd respondent, at a high speed, on account of which the death of the deceased Dhananjaya Naidu was caused, and the said finding has become final and needs no interference in the absence of substantial material on the part of the respondents. 18. It is the contention of the appellant-insurance company that the deceased himself was negligent and contributed his part of negligence to the accident by crossing the road negligently without following the vehicular traffic at the time of accident and that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned 50% of the negligence on the part of the deceased. 19. As seen from the award, the case of the 3rd respondent- insurance is that 1st respondent-driver drove the vehicle cautiously and while the deceased was transporting fodder to the cattle, suddenly crossed the road and fell down on the road and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. But, except the said plea in the counter, no evidence was adduced by the respondent-insurance company in proof of the same. Even PW.2, who is said to be an eye-witness, did not say 14 about the deceased crossing the road suddenly. Even RW.1-the Assistant Manager of the 3rd respondent company, stated as per the contents of the FIR, that the accident occurred due to negligent crossing of the road by the deceased. Except the hearsay evidence of RW.1, no other independent witness was examined in proof of the same. Therefore, in the absence of corroborative evidence to that effect, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of RW.1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, the Tribunal is of the considered view that the 3rd respondent-Insurance company failed to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident and as such, no apportionment of negligence could be attributed to the deceased in the absence of substantial material. Hence, M.A.C.M.A.No.137 of 2019 is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 20. In so far as the contentions of the appellants in the other appeal are concerned, it is the contention of the appellants- claimants that the Tribunal grossly erred in considering the income of the deceased notionally as Rs.6,000/- per month, ignoring the oral and documentary evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A.5- 15 salary certificate of the deceased and erroneously assessed the compensation. 21. As seen from the impugned award, the case of the petitioners is that the deceased was working as Milk Delivery boy- cum-cash collection agent under PW.3, a Transport Contractor, and that the deceased was paid Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. In proof of the same, the claimants adduced oral evidence of PW.3 under whom the deceased was working and documentary evidence of Ex.A.5-salary certificate. But, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A.5-salary certificate, on account of failure of the claimants as well as PW.3 in producing any books of account showing that the deceased was paid Rs.15,000/- per month by PW.3. Holding that mere issuance of Ex.A.5-certificate is not suffice to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month towards salary, in the absence of filing any books of account, the Tribunal, considering the minimum wages prevailing at that time, considered the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was rightly justified in taking the income of the deceased notionally. 16 22. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appelants that the Tribunal grossly erred in not granting any compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering to the appellants as per the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ((2009) 6 SCC 121). As seen from the impugned award, though the claimants claimed Rs.23,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities of life of the deceased, the Tribunal, holding that as the deceased died immediately after the accident, awarding compensation under these heads does not arise. 23. In so far as awarding of amounts under the other heads, as seen from the award, the Tribunal, following the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi (2017 Supreme (SC) 1050), has rightly granted the amounts under various heads and award of such amounts was in tune with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, and accordingly, this court is of the view that the Tribunal was justified in awarding just compensation and thus, the award under appeal does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this 17 Court and hence, MACMA.No.67 of 2020 is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 24. 24. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed, confirming the award and decree dated 15.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________ V. SUJATHA, J Date: 11.07.2025 Ksn/JLV