♦ . IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 117 OF 2019 Between: The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Rep by.Divisional Manager, D.No. 12- 11-32, Sukuru complex, LR Apparao street, Vijayawada, Krishna District- 5200 001 ...Appellants/Respondent AND 1. Badugu Lurdhu Meri, W/o.Late Subba Rao, Aged 50yrs, D.No. 4-23, Appannaveedhu village, Peddapudu Mandal, West Godavari District 2. Badugu Fathima Rani, W/o.Late Subba Rao, Aged 50yrs, D.No. 4-23, Appannaveedhu village, Peddapudu Mandal, West Godavari District 3. Badugu Jhansi Rani, W/o.Late Subba Rao, Aged 18yrs, D.No. 4-23 Appannaveedhu village, Peddapudu Mandal, West Godavari District ...Respondents/Claimants 4. Guntu Suresh, S/o Venkateshwar Rao, Aged 25 yrs, D.No. 4-42,. Near RIy Gate, Atukur vilalge, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District. 5. Sarihaddu Jyothi, W/o Sekhar, Hindu, aged 30yrs, R/o. Padaoutpalli Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondents/Respondents . • • Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act praying that the High court mpy be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed in MVOP. order dated 14.08.2018 on the file of the MACT - i" f I Qjgt Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. cum - I Addl. ^ . ■ «*(. 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 Ms.P Satya Manjula for the Appellant and Sri Ms. Karuturi Hema Bindhu for the Respondent Nos.1to3 and none appeared for respondents 4,5. This Court doth order and decree as follows: (i) That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. That there shall be no order as to costs. (ii) Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// y ^ SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I additional District Judge, W.G. District. 2. Three CD Copies YM sree HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.117of 2019 of I 'SJUNM25 J %^esPATCv2S»^ DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY .THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA jyiOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 117 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act praying that the High court may be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed in MVOP. 697/2014 order dated 14.08.2018 on the file of the MACT - cum - I Addl. Dist. Judge, West Godavari Eluru Between; The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Rep by.Divisional Manager, D.No. 12- 11-32, Sukuru complex, LR Apparao street, Vijayawada, Krishna District- 5200 001 ...Appellants/Respondent AND 1. Badugu Lurdhu Meri, W/o.Late Subba Rao, Aged 50yrs, D.No. 4-23, , Appannaveedhu village, Peddapudu Mandal, West Godavari District 2. Badugu Fathima Rani, W/o.Late Subba Rao, Aged 50yrs, D.No. 4-23, Appannaveedhu village, Peddapudu Mandal. West Godavari District 3. Badugu Jhansi Rani, W/o.Late Subba Rao, Aged 18yrs, D.No. 4-23, Appannaveedhu village, Peddapudu Mandal, West Godavari District ...Respondents/Claimants , i 4. Guntu Suresh, S/o Venkateshwar Rao, Aged 25 yrs, D.No. 4-42,. Near RIy Gate, Atukur vilalge, Unguturu^Mandal, Krishna District. 5. Sarihaddu Jyothi, W/o Sekhar, Hindu, aged 30yrs, R/o. Padaoutpalli Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District. - - ■/ ''i *■ • » V'' ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2Q19 Petition under Section 151 of 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 of judgment and decree in MVOP. 697 of 2014 order dated 14.08.2018 on the file of the MACT - additional District Judge, W.G.Dist cum - I Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. P SATYA MANJULA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Ms. KARUTURI HEMA BINDHU The Court made the following Judgment: APHC010060852019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] - ?■ • FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 117/2019 Between: ...APPELLANT Niaco Ltd AND ...RESPONDENT(S) B Lurdhu Meri and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.PSATYAMANJULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KARUTURI HEMA BINDHU The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 117 OF 2019 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the appellant/The New India Assurance Company Limited (in short ‘Insurance Company’), challenging the Award, dated 14.8.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.69/ - 7 of 2014 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Court, West Godavari, Eluru (in short ‘the Tribunal), granting compensation of Rs.8,18,184/- to the petitioners/claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) on account of death of the deceased-Badugu Subba Rao in a Motor accident that occurred on 19.9.2014 as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, which is over and above the claim. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal will be 2. referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The case of the petitioners/claimants is as follows: (a) Petitioner No.1 is the wife and 2^^ & 3'"^ petitioners are the daughters of the deceased. Respondent No.3 is the married daughter of the deceased and as she was not a dependant, she was shown as respondent No.3 in the claim petition. 3 (b) On 19.02.2014 at about 10:30 hours, the respondent No.1-, being the rider of the Bajaj Discover Motorcyde bearing No.AP 16 BX 8962 (herein after referred to as offending vehicle), while proceeding on N.H.5 road from Atkuru Village to Gannavaram, ride the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased, who stood on the road margin, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries on the left side of his head. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Dr.Pinnamaneni Siddhardha Hospiral Cinavutapalli, from there to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, for better treatment and while undergoing treatment there, he succumbed to injuries at 1:15 am, on 21.2.2014. The Station House Officer, Unguturu Police Station registered a case in Crime No.26 of 2014 under Section 304-A of the IPC and Section 134(A)(B) read with 187 of the M.V.Act. (c) It is contended that the deceased was hale and healthy and working as a guard to safe guard the lands and also running a diary farm at Pedavutapalli Village of Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District, and thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month. (d) It is further contended that as the petitioners lost their sole bread winner due to the accident, they claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. The 4 respondent No.1 being the rider-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the same, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a detailed written 4. statement and opposed the claim of the claimants and submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased as he suddenly came across the middle of the road to stop an auto and he himself contributed the accident. It is further contended that the rider of the motor cycle did not have valid driving license at the time of accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the Policy issued to the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was not put to road test by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the respondent No.1 failed to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the deceased, the name of the rider and particulars of the driving licence, as required under Section 134(c) of the M.V.Act, 1988. Further, as per Section 158(6) of the Act, it is mandatory duty on the part of the concerned Police to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of intimation, but the Station House Officer, Unguturu Police Station has not complied with the same it was finally stated that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive, and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5 Respondent No.1-owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle - *-also filed written statement, opposing the claim of the clairridhts and denied that the mode and manner of the accident and the injuries sustained by the deceased and also stated that he was having valid driving licence to ride the vehicle at the time of the accident and the 5. © same was in force by the time of the accident and finally contended that the accident had not occurred as alleged in the petition and hence the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation. The respondent No.3, married daughter of the deceased, did not contest claim petition and remained ex-parte. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has settled the following issues for trial: 7. 1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 19.02.2014 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bajaj Discover Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 16 BX 8962 and whether Badugu Subbarao sustained injuries in the said accident? 2. Whether the Baja] Discover Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 16 BX 8962 was driven by the 1^‘ respondent, who is the driver-cum-owner of the Crime Vehicle and 2”"' respondent is insurer of the vehicle at the relevant time? 3. Whether there are any violations of conditions of Policy? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of respondents? 5. To what relief? 6 On behalf of the claimants, 1®' claimant was examined as P.W.1. They also examined one eye-witness as P.W.2., but her » ^ t C' evidence was eschewed. Exs.AI to A4 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.8,18,184/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the said amount of compensation to the petitioners. Out of the compensation so awarded, petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased was held entitled to Rs.3,18,184/-, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- each. Further, petitioner No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.2,18,184/- with accrued interest and costs thereon and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of two years. Petitioner No.2 was permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- along with interest accrued thereon and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank, for a period of two years. The apportioned amount of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded to the petitioner No.3, who is the minor daughter of the deceased, shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till 9. she attains majority. 7 Aggrieved by the same, the appeliant/insurance Company 10. preferred this appeal. Heard Ms. P.Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel 11. appearing for the appeliant/insurance Company and Ms.K.Hema Bindu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the appeliant/insurance Company 12. contends that the Tribunal has failed to observe that there was no documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased and without there being any such proof, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded future prospects at the rate of 50%. He further contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and on higher side, and therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned award and allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/ciaimants supports the impugned award and prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Now the point for consideration is; Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 8 POINT: The Tribunal, on perusal of the oral and documentary 15. evidence, gave finding that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. As such the question of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased does not arise. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the tribunal having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1-FIR 16. registered against the R1, Ex.AS-charge sheet and Ex.A4-MVrs report held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. Now coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, according 17. to the claimants the deceased used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month by safe guarding the lands and by running dairy farm. However, since no documentary evidence was placed on record to substantiate the said earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hem Raj Vs. Original Insurance Company Limited and Others^ added 50% of the income i.e., 2,250/- towards future ‘ 2018 ACJ 5 9 M prospects and thereby arrived at Rs.6,750/- as the monthly income of the deceased. After deducting 1/4th of his income towards personal expenditure as income would be Rs.5,062/- per month i.e., Rs.60,744/- per annum and by applying the relevant multiplier of ‘11’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 55 years and the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.6,68,184/- (60,744 X 11) towards loss of dependency to the petitioners on account of the death of the deceased, it is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^. Further, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- each to 18. the petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Rs.15,000/- to the 1st petitioner towards loss of consortium i.e., in total an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper and needs no interference. Thus the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.8,18,184/- is just and proper and cannot be stated to be excess or on higher side. The present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company on the sole ground that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,18,184/-, which is in fact over and above the claim made by the petitioners which in fact is only Rs.4,00,000/-. 19. ' 2009 ACJ 1298 10 The Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances, while considering the batch of cases, in Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Matho and others^ has clarified that as per the decision of the Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and other [ (2003) 2 SCC 274] , it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award 20. compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company under Ex.B1 policy admitted by R.W.2, Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company and except the oral evidence of R.W.1 and 2 there was no substantial evidence placed on 21. record to show that the respondent No.1 has no valid driving license on the date of incident, the Tribunal has rightly directed the Respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioners which cannot be find fault with. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal is justified and warrants no interference in this appeal. 22. " 2022 8 Supreme 229 11 Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is 23. dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SC //TRUE COPY// '1^. SECTION OFFICER The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I additional District Judge, W.G. District, (with records if any) 2. One CC to Ms. P Satya Manjula, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. Karuturi Hema Bindhu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies To 1. YM sree HIGH COURT DATE 0:25/04/2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.117of 2019 DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS