APHC010029442022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 30 of 2022 Between: Vemaneni Lakshmamma and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND B Ramesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. RAMINENI SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 05.03.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.115 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟). 2. The appellants herein are the claimants before the Tribunal. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the driver and insurer of the auto bearing No.AP 02X 9031(hereinafter called as “offending vehicle”). 3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i) On 02.07.2015 at around 9:00 a.m., after completing his work, the deceased was returning from Bathalapalli in an auto bearing registration number AP 02 X 9031, along with others. When the vehicle reached near RDT Hospital, Bathalapalli, the driver of the auto drove in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in collision with an oncoming car bearing registration number AP 29 BX 9179. As a result of the accident, the deceased and other passengers sustained multiple injuries. He was immediately shifted to RDT Hospital, Bathalapalli for treatment and was later taken home. However, due to unbearable pain and complications, he was subsequently shifted to another hospital, where he unfortunately succumbed to his injuries. Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the respondents. 4. The Respondent No.1 filed counter denying allegations made in the petition regarding manner of accident, income, occupation manner of death as contended by petitioners. He was driving auto very slowly and carefully. There was rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP 29 BX 9179 as its driver without observing vehicle movement on busy road came and dashed against the auto. He further denying that he possessed valid driving license and insurance policy to his vehicle on the date of accident. Hence, only Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation and prays to dismissal of the petition against the Respondent No.1. 5. The Respondent No.2 filed counter denying allegation made in petition regarding manner of accident, age, income, occupation, manner of receiving injuries as contend by petitioners and death. The driver, owner and insurer of car bearing No.AP 29 BX 9179 are necessary parties to petition and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car. Claim of compensation is excessive and prays to dismissal of the petitioner against the Respondent No.2. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether accident occurred on 02.07.2015 at 1.00 pm, near B.D.T hospital, Bathalapalli to Kadiri Road, N.H.42 on 02.07.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing No.AP 02 X 9031 as resulted causing death of V.Venkata Ramudu? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? Which of the respondent? And 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 and B2 and Ex.X1. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, held that petitioner No.1/claimant No.1 is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization against the respondents are jointly and severally. If they fail to deposit the amount within two months from the date of this order, they are directed to deposit amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till the date of realization. 9. It is against the said order; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard Sri Harish Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Ramineni Satish Babu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. No representation on behalf of the respondents. 11. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to set aside, if so, to what extent and to what relief?” 12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased, involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in causing the incident. It is also not in dispute that the insurer did not prefer any appeal against the Award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal grossly erred in calculating the income of the deceased. The petitioners have established that the deceased was earning at least Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the same and taken only Rs.40,000/- per annum. 14. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that no proof has been filed before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- or Rs.8,000/- as claimed. More so, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have already became majors and aged about 40 and 38 years at the time of filing of the petition. The Tribunal has also awarded compensation under conventional heads and funeral expenses. 15. On perusal of the entire material on record, this Court does not find any merit in the claim for enhancement of compensation and the Award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date:30.06.2025 KNN