IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 60 OF 2019 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, S.B.H. Upstairs, Santhapeta, Ongde, Prakasam District, rep by its Regional Manager P.S. Rao. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3 AND 1. Patibandia Anusha, W/o Late Naresh Babu @ Naresh, aged 20 yrs, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar colony, Tirpuranthakam, Prakasam District 2. Patibandia Balanagamma, W/o Late Balakotaiah, aged 53 yrs, R/o. Ambedkar Nagar colony, Tripuranthakam, Prakasam District 3. C Khayum, S/o Khaja Mohiddin, Owner of Lorry AP 21 3579, D.No. 17- 88-11, Kishan Singh street, Atmakur, Kurnool District 4. Selarsagari Kalam, S/o Rasool, Aged 40 Years, Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 3579, R/o Kothapeta street, Atmakur, Kurnool District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved with the decree fudgntent dated 02.05.2018 passed in MVOP 31 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, ^otor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - VII Addl. District Judge Prakasahn ^Strict at Ongole and This atipeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of SRI K. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri NUTHAUPATI KRISHNA MURTHY, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. This court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the MAGMA be and hereby is dismissed 2. That there shall be no order as to Costs in this MACHA. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER -cum-VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2. Three C.D.Copies 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ir HIGH COURT DATED; 09/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.60 of 2019 f , (I4JUL 2025 K TOntSec o DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 60 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved with the decree and judgment dated 02.05.2018 passed in MVOP 31 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - VII Addl. District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole Between: The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, S.B.H. Upstairs, Santhapeta, Ongole, Prakasam District, rep by its Regional Manager P.S. Rao. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3 AND 1. Patibandia Anusha, W/o Late Naresh Babu @ Naresh, aged 20 yrs R/o.Ambedkar Nagar colony, Tirpuranthakam, Prakasam District 2. Patibandia Balanagamma, W/o Late Balakotaiah, aged 53 yrs, R/o. Ambedkar Nagar colony, Tripuranthakam, Prakasam District C Khayum, S/o Khaja Mohiddin, Owner of Lorry AP 21 3579, D.No. 17- 88-11, Kishan Singh street, Atmakur, Kurnool District Selarsagari Kalam, S/o Rasool, Aged 40 Years, Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 3579, R/o Kothapeta street, Atmakur, Kurnool District 3. 4. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 lA NO: 2 OF 2019 r 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 all further proceedings in the Decree and Judgment dated 02-05-20T8 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 31 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, IVrotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents Nos 1 & 2: SRI NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following JUDGMENT: APHC010033852019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 60/2019 Between: Oruebtak Insurance Co Ltd ...APPELLANT AND P Anusha and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following: 2 VS,J macma 60 2019 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the impugned award and order passed in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 10,90,000/- towards total compensation to the claimants, this instant appeal is preferred by the Insurance company (respondent No.3 before the Tribunal). For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 2) The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the Naresh Babu @ Naresh, (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.01.2015. 3) The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: 4) On 31.12.2014 at about 11.30 p.m. the deceased along with Bondalapati Babu went to Yerragondapalem centre at Thripuranthakam on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 AZ 2037 to meet their friends on the eve of new year. While returning to home, when they reached Vinukonda area, respondent No.2 being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 21W 3579 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn, dashed against the motorcycleof the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased and the said Babu fell down, and the deceased sustained severe injuries. Immediately, pillion rider (by name Babu) and the relatives shifted the injured to 3 VS,J macma 60 2019 private hospital at Thripuranthakam, where the Doctors gave first aid and advised to shift the injured to the other Hospital for better treatment, in the meanwhile the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The Thripuranthakam police have registered a case in Crime No.01 of 2015 against respondent No.2, who is the driver of the crime vehicle. The marriage between the deceased and petitioner No.1 was performed about 7 months prior to the accident. The deceased was the sole bread winner and hale and healthy, working as Auto driver, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the accident, the petitioners lost their livelihood and love and affection; suffered a lot mentally. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No.2 is the driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 is the insurance company. 5) 6) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 - Insurance company filed a counter by denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the deceased did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the two wheeler at the time of the accident. Owner of the motorcycle was not shown as party to the proceedings, therefore, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Respondent No.2 driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of accident, respondent No.1 knowing fully well about this information allowed respondent No.2 to drive the crime vehicle, and the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive, arbitrary and requested to dismiss the petition. 7) 4 VS,J macma 60 2019 Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 8) (1) Whether the deceased - Patibandia Naresh Babu @ Naresh S/o. (Late) Balakotaiah, died in a road accident that was taken place on 01.01.2015 at about 00.15 a.m. at opposite to SBI ATM, Tripuranthakam on Kurnool- Guntur Highway road in Prakasam District due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 3579 by the 2^'^ respondent? (2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (3) Whether the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 3579 is having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? (4) Whether the 1®‘ respondent is having valid and effective insurance policy by the time of the accident? (5) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? (6) To what relief? 9) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and pillion rider was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 was marked. 10) Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners 5 Ih VS,J macma_60_2019 holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Lorry. Issue No.2 was answered against the petitioners holding that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 11) 12) Issue Nos.3 and 4 were answered in favour of the claimants and as against respondent No.3 holding that they failed to prove that respondent No.2 was not holding effective driving license at the time of accident. 13) With regard to issue No.5, the Tribunal, in the absence of any proof with regard to the income of the deceased, has taken the income of the deceased as 250/- per day i.e. Rs.7,500/- (Rs.250 X 30) per month and after deducting 1/3'^'^ towards his personal expenses, his monthly income comes to Rs.5,000/-, therefore, annual income of the deceased would be Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5000 X 12) . Further, considering the age of the deceased as 26, the Tribunal applied multiplier 17 and awarded Rs. 10,20,000/- (Rs.60,000 X 17). Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of Estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all Tribunal awarded Rs.10,90,000/-. 14) Though the claimants failed to adduce any evidence to the extent that the bike on which the deceased was travelling was in fit condition at the time of accident and the same was insured, the Tribunal gave a finding that the deceased could drove two wheeler as he possessed valid driving license and as the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 as per Ex.B.1 policy, respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending lorry was directed to pay 6 VS,J macma 60 2019 compensation for the acts done by his driver i.e. respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 was directed to indemnify the loss to be sustained by respondent No.1. 15) Aggrieved thereby, this instant appeal is filed by respondent No.3 questioning the validity of the award passed by the Tribunal alleging that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle (deceased) as the said motorcycle and the offending vehicle have colluded from opposite directions. It is further contended that though the income of the deceased was not supported by any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has erroneously considered the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month, which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court. Therefore, the award passed by the lower Tribunal is on higher side and requested to allow the appeal. 16) The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference, and requested to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company. 17) Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows; “Whether the award of the Tribunal below granting compensation of Rs.10,90,000/- is on reasonable basis?” 18) I have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.W.2 - Bondalapati Babu, pillion rider of the motorcycle, deposed 7 VS,J macma 60 2019 that on 31.12.2014 at about 11.30 p.m., himself and deceased went to Yerragondapalem centre at Tripuranthakam on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 AZ 2037 to meet their friends on the eve of New year. At about 0.15 hours on 01.01.2015 they returned from there to go to house. The deceased was driving the motorcycle, when they reached opposite to SBI ATM Centre on Kurnool-GunturHighway in Tripuranthakam, the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 3579 came from Vinukonda side in opposite direction with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle AP 27 AZ 2037. As a result of which, the deceased and P.W.2 fell down from the motorcycle, the deceased received severe injuries. Immediately, P.W.2 informed the same to the family members of the deceased and shifted the deceased to a private hospital at Tripuranthakam , where the doctor gave first aid and advised to go to highercentre for better treatment. Whije the injured was being shifted to Vinukonda for better treatment, on the way, he succumbed to injuries. 19) Further, Ex.A.1 - copy of F.I.R and Ex.A.5 - copy of Charge Sheet disclosed that after investigation police filed charge sheet against respondent No.2. Therefore, basing on the evidence of P.W.2, Exs.A.1 and A.5, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 being the driver of the offending vehicle. 20) Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the present award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that without there being any proof regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal erroneously considered the earnings of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. 8 VS,J macma 60 2019 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in “Jakir Hussein Vs. Sab/V”, wherein the appellant was working as a driver. Even though as per the notification issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a person employed as a driver earns Rs.128 per day, the Apex Court held that the wage rate as per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the compensation under the future loss of income. Minimum wage, as per the State Government notification alone may at times fail to meet the requirements that are needed to maintain the basic quality of life since it is not inclusive of factors of cost of living index and taken the appellant’s daily wage at Rs.150 per day (Rs.4500 per month and Rs.54,000/- per annum) as he was driver of the motor vehicle which is a skilled job. 21) 22) Subsequently, in ‘Karamjit Kaur and Ors. Vs. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. and Ors.^” (Civil Appeal No. 3545 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15657 of 2019 dated 09.05.2023), the Apex Court held that in respect of a casual labourer, a sum of Rs. 250/- per day cannot be considered as excessive or exorbitant. In that view, if the same is reckoned, the monthly Income could be taken at Rs. 7,500/-. In the said case, the accident had occurred in the year 2014. 1 (2015) 7 see 252 2 2023 LawSuit (Se) 967 9 VS,J macma 60 2019 23) In the present case, the accident had occurred on the midnight of 31.12.2014 and as the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and he was working as auto driver, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.250/- per day. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in "Karamjit Kaur and Ors. Vs. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. and Ors.” (referred supra), this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.250/- per day. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in “Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir” (referred supra) would be of no use to the appellants in view of the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in 'Karamjit Kaur and Ors. Vs. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. and Ors.” (referred supra) and even otherwise, in “Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir” (referred supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the wage rate as per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the compensation under the future loss of income. Minimum wage, as per the State Government notification alone may at times fail to meet the requirements that are needed to maintain the basic quality of life since it is not inclusive of factors of cost of living index. 24) As the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 26 years, the Tribunal below rightly applied the multiplier as 17 in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.,\. As stated supra, the Tribunal below taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7500/- per month (Rs.250 X 30), and after deducting 1/3rd of the income of the ^2009 ACJ 1295 SC 10 VS,J macma_60_2019 deceased towards personal expenditure, it would come to [Rs.7,500 - Rs.2,500] Rs.5,000/- per month and accordingly arrived at the annual income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- X 12 = Rs.60,000/-, after applying multiplier 17, it would come to Rs. 10,20,000/- [Rs.60,000/- X 17], In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs. 10,90,000/- to the claimants. 25) As already pointed out, the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, and respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending lorry was directed to pay compensation for the acts done by his driver i.e. respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 was directed to indemnify the loss to be sustained by respondent No.1. 26) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 10,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, who are the wife and mother of the deceased, for the death of the deceased, sustainable under law, which needs no interference. was on reasonable basis and is 27) Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 28) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /f:. SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2. One CC to SRI. K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies nm h J HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.60 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ^0 JUL 2025 irentSectiojjXC^ CO