APHC010292622017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1226 of 2017 Between: M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. Vijayawada ...APPELLANT AND G Uma Devi Krishna Dist 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD 2. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 379 of 2025 Between: Gampala Uma Devi and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Singarapu Chitti Babu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S A V RATNAM 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1226 of 2017 & 379 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals arise out of same order dated 30.01.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.437 of 2010 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, by which compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded to the claimants (respondent Nos.1 & 2 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1226 of 2017 and appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.379 of 2025) on account of death of one Mr. Gampala Chandrakaladhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased) in a motor accident. 2. The insurer (2nd respondent before the Tribunal) filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1226 of 2017, assailing the Tribunal’s order on both the grounds of liability as well as quantum, while the claimants preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.379 of 2025, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 05.05.2010, the deceased, who was employed as an Office Subordinate in Roads & Buildings Department at Kaikaluru, was returning home by walk from market, accompanied by his eldest daughter, and when they reached a point opposite to R&B Guest House on the road leading from Gudivada to Eluru, he was hit by a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 37 U 1254, which was being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in severe head injuries to the deceased. The deceased was initially shifted to Help Hospital at Vijayawada and subsequently, to Siddhartha Medical Hospital, Vijayawada, where he succumbed on 12.05.2010 while undergoing treatment. The accident was reported to the police and based on the statement of the eldest daughter of the deceased, a case in Crime No.36 of 2010 was registered on the file of Kaikaluru Town Police Station for offence under Section 337 I.P.C., against the 1st respondent/owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid. (ii) The deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and was in Government service, drawing a salary of Rs.19,838/- per month, survived by his wife and three daughters. As two of the daughters were already married, the claim was instituted by the wife and youngest daughter, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. As the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent/insurer, the claim was instituted against both the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle and the insurer. (iii) The 1st respondent/owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent/insurer filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident occurred and also denying that the 1st respondent/owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle was negligent in causing the accident. It was further contended that the 1st respondent was in a drunken state at the time of incident and that he did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, which constitutes violation of conditions of the insurance policy. The written statement also denied the age and income of the deceased as well as entitlement of claimants to the compensation claimed. (iv) Based on the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle/Hero Honda bearing Regd.No. AP 37 U 1254 in the motor accident dated 5.5.2010? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? (v) In support of the claim, the claimants got examined wife of the deceased as P.W.1 and eldest daughter, who accompanied the deceased at the time of the accident and was an eye-witness, as P.W.2, and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of insurance company, their officer was examined as R.W.1, Motor Vehicle Inspector as R.W.2, the 1st respondent/owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle as R.W.3, and an officer of the Transport Department as R.W.4, and Exs.B1 and B2 and X1 to X3 were marked. (vi) The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence brought on record by both sides and, in particular, considering the evidence of P.W.2/eye- witness to the accident and Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2- Postmortem Report, Ex.A3 - Inquest Report and also Ex.B2- charge sheet, has come to conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent. (vii) The accident having been proved and that the cause of accident being the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation and the liability. Though the insurer has taken a stand that the 1st respondent/rider of the motorcycle was in drunken state at the time of accident, in the absence of any cogent evidence in that regard, the Tribunal disbelieved the same. The insurer had also taken a stand that the rider of motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence. In order to substantiate the same, the insurer had adduced evidence of R.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.X1 to X3. However, the Tribunal, after appreciating the said evidence, has come to conclusion that the insurer failed to prove that the rider of motorcycle did not possess valid driving licence. (viii) As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, based on Ex.A4- salary certificate and considering the age of the deceased as 50 as on the date of accident, proceeded to compute the loss of dependency, along with amounts under conventional heads, and ultimately determined compensation at Rs.17,45,744/-. However, since the claim was made only for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the award was restricted to the claimed amount and, accordingly, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was granted, along with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. (ix) Assailing the same, the present appeals are preferred by both insurer as well as claimants. 5. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company and Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel representing Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for claimants. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company mainly contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fastened liability on the insurer inasmuch as the 1st respondent/owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle was in a drunken state at the time of accident and that he did not possess valid and effective driving licence, and the findings recorded by the Tribunal negativing the aforesaid pleas, suffer from perversity. She further contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which is excessive, and that, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, interest ought to have been awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants, while supporting the impugned order to the extent of findings in relation to fixing of negligence on rider of motorcycle and liability on both the rider of motorcycle and insurer, contended that in the absence of any evidence on record to show that the rider of motorcycle was in drunken state or that he did not possess valid driving licence, the Tribunal has rightly rejected both these objections, by assigning sound reasons, which do not call for any interference. To buttress his argument that the plea of absence of valid and effective driving licence must be clearly established by the insurer, which the insurer failed to do in the instant case, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Madiga Thappeta Ramakka and others2. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/-, despite having determined that the just and fair compensation was Rs.17,45,744/-, and that even if the claim amount is less than the compensation assessed or determined, the Tribunal can award the full compensation as assessed. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh3. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 1994 SCC OnLine AP 77 3 (2003) 2 SCC 274 It is further submitted that the Tribunal, while computing compensation, failed to consider the component of future prospects and also erroneously applied the multiplier of ‘11’ instead of ‘13’, thereby failed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation4. Lastly, it is submitted that the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the same cannot be said to be excessive. 8. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both counsels. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arise for consideration in the present appeal are: “1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the insurer on the ground that the insurer failed to prove that the 1st respondent/owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence, suffers from perversity? 2) When the Tribunal, having determined a higher sum to be just compensation, could have restricted the award to Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed in the claim petition and whether such restriction suffers from perversity, thereby warranting interference by this Court?” 10. The accident has occurred on 05.05.2010, in which the deceased was hit by motorcycle driven by 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is not only the rider but also the owner of the motorcycle. The injured was initially admitted to the hospital for treatment; however, he succumbed to the injuries on 12.05.2010. 4 2009 ACJ 1298 11. The claimants in the claim petition have asserted that the 1st respondent was negligent in riding the bike at the time of accident. The insurer has taken a specific stand that the 1st respondent did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the burden lies on the insurer to prove said aspect. In order to prove the same, the insurer had summoned the 1st respondent, who was otherwise set ex parte in the proceedings, and got him examined as R.W.3. RW.3, in his evidence, has clearly admitted that he did not possess a regular divining licence, rather he had only learner’s licence and that he lost the said licence and, if required, he can produce the same. 12. Further, two other key witnesses were examined for insurer, namely R.W.2-Motor Vehicle Inspector and R.W.4-Senior Assistant in Regional Transport Officer, Bhimavaram. RW.2, who has drawn Ex.X1-MVI Report, has spoken that as per his verification, the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a driving licence. Even R.W.4, who is Senior Assistant in Regional Transport Office, Bhimavaram, deposed that on thorough search of records, both offline and online at the office of R.T.A., Bhimavaram, pertaining to the year 2005-06, he could not find any driving licence standing in the name of 1st respondent. The records also indicated that the 1st respondent’s address was at Bhimavaram. Therefore, the concerned officer from the R.T.A, Bhimavaram, was examined. 13. The best person to speak about 1st respondent having either a regular driving licence or at least learner’s licence is himself and secondly, the concerned jurisdictional authority, which issues the licence. The 1st respondent himself has admitted that he did not possess regular driving licence, rather he had only learner’s driving licence and even failed to produce the same. His statement has been sufficiently supported by the evidence of R.W.2 and R.W.4, who stated that, after verification of records, they found no driving licence issued in the name of the 1st respondent. 14. Since 1st respondent himself has admitted to the factum of not having regular driving licence and even failed to produce the Learner’s Licence, the insurer can certainly be said to have discharged its burden of proof. However, the Tribunal ignored the aforesaid crucial evidence on record and arrived at the conclusion that the insurer had miserably failed to establish that the 1st respondent did not possess valid driving licence. Even, for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the 1st respondent had learner’s licence, as per his own admission, it would not absolve the owner-cum-rider of the liability. A holder of learner’s licence (LLR) is required to be accompanied by an instructor having valid driving licence while riding a motorcycle, which the 1st respondent failed to comply with. As such, the same constitutes a statutory violation. 15. Learned counsel for the insurer at this stage contended that, even if it is treated to be a case of 1st respondent having learner’s licence, the liability would still lies on the owner-cum-rider. Therefore, the principle of ‘pay and recover’ enunciated in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh5 is applicable and the insurer should be given liberty to proceed against the 1st respondent to recover the same. 16. Since the evidence on record, in particular, the self-statement of 1st respondent clearly establishes that he never applied for regular driving licence, rather he only asserted to have learner’s licence, it can safely be 5 2004 AIR (SC) 1531 concluded that the insurer had discharged its burden of proof to show that the 1st respondent did not possess valid and effective driving licence. Having said so, in order to protect the interests of the claimants and as negligence is admittedly attributable to the rider-cum-owner of the offending motorcycle, the compensation ultimately determined shall be paid by the insurer in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the 1st respondent. The finding and conclusion drawn by the Tribunal to the extent of fastening liability on insurer, therefore, requires to be modified in the above terms. Point No.1 is accordingly answered. 17. Coming to the other aspect of restricting the compensation to the amount as claimed before the Tribunal, the submission of learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal ought not to have restricted the compensation, has considerable force. 18. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (supra), while considering similar issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/ Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition.” 19. Further, in Ramla v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), while reiterating the principle laid down in Nagappa, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. [See the judgments of this Court in (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh: (2003) 2 SCC 274 (b) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram: (2018) 18 SCC 130, (c) Ibrahim v. Raju : (2011) 10 SCC 634].” 20. Accordingly, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above, this Court holds that the Tribunal, having determined a higher sum to be just compensation, ought not to have restricted the same merely because the claim was made for Rs.5,00,000/-. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 21. While coming to the aspect of computation of the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the claimants contended that though the income of deceased was rightly assessed as Rs.19,838/- per month, future prospects were not awarded and further, multiplier of ‘11’ was adopted instead of ‘13’. There is no dispute with the occupation and income of the deceased. The aspects of computation in relation to future prospects and multiplier are clearly settled in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma. Considering the fact that the deceased had a permanent job and was aged 50 years, the compensation is required to be determined. 22. Accordingly, the compensation to which the claimants would be entitled under various heads is revised as under: S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income ₹19,838/- x 12 = ₹2,38,056/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 50 years) ₹35,708/- (i.e., 15% of the income) Total Income ₹2,73,764/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) ₹91,254/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency ₹1,82,510/- 5 Multiplier of 13 for the age of 50 years 13 x ₹1,82,510/- = ₹23,72,630/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (2 claimants) ₹96,800/- (₹48,400/- x 2) (ii) Loss of Estate ₹18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses ₹18,150/- 7 Total Compensation ₹25,05,730/- 23. Further, even the rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum is on higher side and therefore, following aforesaid judgments, the same has to be reduced to 7.5% per annum. 24. Accordingly, the impugned order and decree dated 30.01.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.437 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam, is modified, by awarding compensation of Rs.25,05,730/- to the claimants together with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurer shall pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the claimants at first instance, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and is at liberty to recover the same from the 1st respondent, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh6. On such deposit being made, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in proportionate shares as provided under the impugned order. It is needless to observe that the claimants shall pay the differential court fee before withdrawing the compensation. 25. Both the appeals are, accordingly, partly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Date: 01.09.2025 KNN 6 2004 AIR (SC) 1531