IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARC^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE cfl -Ax IP c m. *3 a? ¥ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 386 OF 2022 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, rep. By its Divisional Manager, Vijayawada. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Bokam Padma, W/o Nageswararao, aged about 44 years. House hold duties, residing at D.No.2-4, Tavvavanipalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Bokam Nageswararao, S/o Sannibabu, aged about 52 years, cultivation residing at D.No.2-4, Tavvavanipalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3. Bokam Suguna, D/o Nageswara Rao, aged about 25 years. Household duties, residing at D.No.2-4, Tavvavanipalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4. Sabbavarapu Venkataramana, S/o Late Sanyasi, aged 56 years, resident of Dennderu Santhapalem Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. (Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 15 W 2348) 4 5. Sabbavarapu Simhachalam, S/o Sanyasi, resident of D.No. 13-80/2, Draonam Raju Nagar, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam District. (Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 W 2348) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 31-01-2022 on the file of Chairman, MACT-cum-X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle, passed in M.V.O.P. 18 of 2017 This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.Parameswara Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Smt R.Sudha Rani, Advocate for the Respondents This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /r. SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-X Additional District Judge Anakapalle , Visakhapatnam District. 2. Three CD Copies MV RAM HIGH COURT DATED: 27/03/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.386 of 2022 ^(11 JUL 2025 jg ^^SCiLiniitSectja^iy DISMISSING THE MACMA 1 I ■ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA H O THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF a rn TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 386 OF 2022 Appeal filed under section 173 of MV Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 31-01-2022 on the file of Chairman, MACT-cum-X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle, passed in M.V.O.P. 18 of 2017 Between; The New India Assurance Company Limited, rep. By its Divisional Manager Vijayawada. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Bokam Padma, W/o Nageswararao, aged about 44 years. House hold duties, residing at D.No.2-4, Tavvavanipalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Bokam Nageswararao, S/o Sannibabu, aged about 52 years, cultivation residing at D.No.2-4, Tavvavanipalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3. Bokam Suguna, D/o Nageswara Rao, aged about 25 years. Household duties, residing at D.No.2-4, Tavvavanipalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4. Sabbavarapu Venkataramana, S/o Late Sanyasi, aged 56 years, resident of Dennderu Santhapalem Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. (Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 15 W 2348) 5. Sabbavarapu Simhachalam, S/o Sanyasi, resident of D.No. 13-80/2, Draonam Raju Nagar, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam District. (Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 W 2348) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 in M.V.O.P. 18 of 2017 on the file of Chairman, MACT-cum-X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, dated 31- 01-2022. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri B.Parameswara Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.Nageswara Rao representing Smt R.Sudha Rani The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No.386 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 31.01.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.18 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-com-X Additional District Judge at Anakapalli (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellant is the insurer of offending lorry bearing No.AP 16 W 2348 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are mother, father and sister of one Bokam Surya Venkata Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after will be referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i) On 23.04.2016 at about 07.00 p.m., while the deceased proceeding on his Hero Glamour Motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 CL 6973 at Sabbavaram, the crime vehicle coming from Chodavaram towards Pendurthi was driven by Respondent No.1 at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed the deceased from his behind. 2 resulted, the deceased received a severe broken head injury and died on the spot, ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The respondent No.3/insurer filed counter and additional counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 in causing the incident; that the petitioners have to file their family member certificate to claim compensation: that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prays to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 5. 6. “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero Glamour Motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 CL 6793? 2.Whether the deceased Bokam Surya Venkata Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar died in the road accident? 3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and against whom? 4. To what relief?” 8. During enquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A. 14. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.BI to B5. 0 On the material, the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that 9. the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the respondent, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 14,26,000/-, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is against the said order, the present appeal was preferred by the 10. Appellant/Insurance Company. Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the 11. Appellant/lnsurance Company and Sri V. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel representing Smt. R. Sudha Rani, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Learned counsel for the appeliant/insurance company submits that 12. the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased is a minor aged about 16 years as per his Transfer Certificate and Aadhar. He further submits that the deceased has no driving license and did not wear helmet at the time of incident and hence, prays to allow the present appeal by discharging the liability of payment on behalf of the appellant. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the Tribunal, after considering the material placed on record, rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants and that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5^' - 4 14. Now, the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the order of the Tribunal is on correct lines or liable to be set aside? 15. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident and that the claimants did not prefer any appeal against the Award passed by the Tribunal. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, the claimants relied upon the testimony of P.W.2, who said to be eyewitness to the incident, coupled with Ex.A.3 charge sheet. On perusal of Ex.A.3 charge sheet, P.W.2 cited witness. He categorically testified about the manner of the incident, rash, and negligent driving of crime vehicle in causing the incident, resulted death of the deceased. The testimony of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.4 and A.3 categorically show the involvement of the crime vehicle as well. Even as per the testimony of PW.1 he gave the number of the offending lorry to the police at the time of giving report itself. The Tribunal after elaborate appreciation of the material on record and by relying on the various pronouncements of this Court, rightly to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1®* respondent. 16. as a 17. came Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the deceased was not having vaJid driving license to ride the motorcycle, thereby, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. It is not in dispute that the insurer could not establish that the absence of valid driving license to the deceased in riding the motorcycle is the primary or fundamental cause for accident, thereby cannot repudiate the claim made by the claimants, when they categorically established that the incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1®' respondent. Coming to the quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the age of the deceased and fact that by the date of incident the deceased studying Diploma in Mechanical Engineering at Polytechnic College at Gudivada, taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, by following the renowned pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^ and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay SethF, rightly calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants by applying suitable multiplier to the age of the deceased, which requires no interference. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no valid grounds urged by the appellant to interfere with the finding arrived by the Tribunal in all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the 19. 20. 'AIR 2009 SC 3104 ^2017 ACJ 2700 6 well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the '' appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal isdismissed. There shall be 21. 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. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// < SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle , Visakhapatnam District, [with records if any ] 2. One CC to Sri B.Parameswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt R.Sudha Rani, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 5. Three CD Copies MV RAM HIGH COURT DATED: 27/03/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.386 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS