IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos: 155 OF 2019 and 161 OF 2019 MACMANo.155 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act be pleased to aggrieved by the award and decree dated 28.08.2018 passed in MVOP. 83/2016 praying that the High Court may on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribnunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Ongole Between: Alakunta Raju, S/o. Vankati,aged 29 years,Occ:Business, H.No. 9- 42/91/A, Sriram Nagar, Village, Manthani mandal, Karimnagar District, Telengana State ...APPELLANT/ 2"^^ RESPONDENT AND 1. Kodimela Koteswaramma,W/o.Venkateswarlu,aged 49 21-28, Darsi road, Bhavani center, Addanki, Prakasam Dist 2. Kodimela Venkateswarlu,S/o.Ramaiah, aged 52 years R/o.D.No. 21-28 Darsi road, Bhavani center, Addanki, Prakasam Dist years,R/o. D.No. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 3. Garapati gopi.S/o.Krishnamurthy.aged 28 years, D.No. 20-168, Sriram nagar, Manthani, Karimngar District-505184 ...RESPONDENT/1®* RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(s):Sri. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati Counsel for the Respondents :Ms. Sree Devi Ravuri MACMANo.ISI of 201 Q Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act may be pleased to call for entire dated 28.08.2018 Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ongole. praying that the High Court records connected to Award and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No. 123 of 2017 on the file of -cum-Principal District Judge, Between: Alakunta Raju, S/o. Venkati, i nagar village, Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District aged 29 year, Occ. Business, R/o. Sriram , Telangana State. ...appellant/ plaintiff AND Kodimela Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ramaiah Darsi Road, Bhavani Center, Addanki Aged 52 years, R/o. D.No. 21-28, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant ;Sri. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti The Court made the following Judgment: 1 APHC010075742019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 155 AND 161 OF 2019 M.A.C.M.A.NO: 155 OF 2019 Between: A Raju ...APPELLANT AND K Koteswaramma and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SREE DEVI RAVURI M.A.C.M.A.NO: 161 OF 2019 ...RESPONDENT(S) Between: Alakunta Raju ...APPELLANT AND Kodimela Venkateswarlu ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI The Court made the following Common Judgment:- The MAC.M.A.No. 155 of 2019 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the Appellant/ Respondent No.2/ Owner of the Harvester, challenging the Award, dated 28.08.2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2016 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole (in short the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 9,22,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are petitioners in the claim petition, as against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The M.A.C.M.A.No. 161 of 2019 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the Apoellant/ owner of the harvester challenging the Award, dated 28.08,2018, passed in M.V.O.P.No.123 of 2017 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole (in short the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal was dismissed the O.P filed against the Petitioner No.2 in M.V.O.P.No. 83 of 2016. 2. For the sake of convenience, M.A.C.M.A.No. 155 of 2019 is taken as a leading case. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The brief facts of the case in M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2019 are as follows: 3 (i) The deceased/ Kodimela Rama Krishna, was studying first year Engineering in RISE Engineering College, Valluru village, Tangutur Mandal. On 13.03.2016 the deceased/Rama Krishna along with other students have attended the anniversary function of their college and after completion of the function in college, he along with his friend Shaik Shameer started to Addanki on their motorcycle bearing No. AP 27 AU 9681 driven by deceased/ Rama Krishna and Shaik Shameer sat as pillion rider. On the way, when they reached near Doddavarappadu village X-road on NH16, Ongole-Guntur Road, they dashed the back side portion of Combined Harvester Machine bearing No.AP 15 AV 5762 which was stopped in the middle of the road in a negligent manner without taking any precautionary measures and without any indicator lights, as a result, the deceased/Rama Krishna and the pillion rider Shaik Shameer fell on the road and sustained injuries. Immediately the injured were shifted to Sangamithra Hospital, Ongole for treatment, but while undergoing treatment the deceased/ Rama Krishna succumbed to injuries on the same day at 02-30 hours. It is further averred in the petition that the accident occurred only due to the negligent stoppage of Harvester Machine by 1st respondent/driver in the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures and indicator lights and he is solely responsible for the accident. Based on the statement given by pillion rider Shaik Shameer, the Station House Officer, Maddipadu Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.36/20^,Jnvestigated the case and filed 4 charge sheet against the driver of harvester machine i.e., 1 respondent under Secs.337 and 304-A of IPC. Therefore, the petitioners have been claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- under various heads from the respondents. 4. Respondent No.2 filed written statement which was adopted by the respondent No.1 denying the material averments in the petition and sought the petitioners to prove the age, education and health condition of the deceased and also the manner of the accident. It is further contended that the 2"^^ respondent is the owner of the harvester tractor and he purchased the same from one Tirupathi Reddy, a week prior to the alleged accident and the respondents along with harvester machine are on their way to their native place i.e.. Shram Nagar of Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State while on the way, one of its big tyres blasted and got breakdown, immediately the respondents switched on reverse lights and put stones and tree branches with leaves around the vehicle and started making trails to repair the vehicle. While sc, when a lorry was crossing the harvester at that time, the deceased along with his friend drove the motorcycle in high speed and came from the back side of lorry and dashed the cutter bar of the harvester and fell on the road and received injuries. Immediately the injured were shifted to a hospital at Ongole in their college bus. It is further averred in the petition that the harvester machine was in stable condition and there is no fault on the part of respondents and it is the duty of the deceased to drive their 5 respective vehicles in a proper and secured way. The deceased drove his motorcycle in high speed manner and dashed the stationed harvester machine and caused the accident and there is no negligence on the part of the respondents, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief against the respondents. Breakdown of the machinery or harvester is not a fault of respondents and for their no fault, they are not liable to pay any compensation and moreover due to the accident caused by the deceased the cutter-bar of the harvester got damaged which costs more than Rs. nd 2,00,000/-, for which the deceased is liable to pay the damages to the 2 respondent. Further the harvester was not insured with any insurance company by the date of accident, but plying the vehicle without insurance is to be penalized according to M.V. Act only and the 2"*^ respondent purchased the vehicle, without insurance but however he was yet to get nd insured his vehicle, after proper verification and after the accident the 2 respondent paid third party insurance. As the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased, the owner and insurer of motorcycle are proper and necessary parties to this petition and as the petitioners have failed to add them as parties to this petition, the petition is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties. For all these and other grounds, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the 5. following issues and additional issues for consideration: 6 1. Whether the death of the deceased Kodimela Rama Krishna had occurred due to the injuries received in the accident on 13.03.2016 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the John Dee/Harvester Tractor beanng No.AP 15 AV 5762 or whether there was any negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motorcycle ? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? 4. To what relief? 6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, the 1®* petitioner/ mother of the deceased is examined as P.W.1, and got examined the pillion rider of the motorcycle as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.AI to A9. On behalf of the respondents, the 2'"'^ respondent himself got examined as R.W.1 besides examining R.\N.2 and R.W.3, but documents are marked. no 7. The Tribunal having observed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of 1"^ respondent and there is no rash and negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motorcycle, Directed the respondents 1 and 2 being driver and owner of offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Accordingly, the claim petition allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs. 9,22,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said liability, the X 7 appellant/owner of the vehicle preferred this appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2019. 8. In view of the above reasoning the Tribunal has dismissed the M.V.O.P.No. 123 of 2017 preferred by the 2"'^ respondent being the owner of the said harvester, wherein claimed an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards damages of the harvester. Aggrieved by both the Awards passed by the learned Tribunal in both the M.V.O.Ps, the present M.A.C.M.As came to be filed. 9. Heard Sri Bathula Sanjay Gandhi, learned counsel representing Sri Naga Praveen Kankayalapati, learned counsel for the appellant and Sree Devi Ravuri, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle would contend that the Tribunal below erroneously held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the combined harvester. Though, the respondent also failed to produce the driving license of the deceased, the tribunal without considering the capability of the driving skills of the deceased, dismissed appellant’s M.V.O.P.No. 123 of 2017 without granting damages are nothing but contrary to their evidence. Therefore, the award of the tribunal is not sustainable under law. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the harvester machine was in stable condition, but due to its breakdown it was parked on4he road and in such a situation it is the 8 duty of the deceased to drive his vehicle in a proper secured way, but the deceased drove his motorcycle in high speed manner and dashed the stationed harvester machine and caused the accident. There is no negligence on the part of the respondents. As such, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation and moreover due to the accident caused by the deceased the cutter-bar of the harvester got damaged which costs more than Rs. 2,00,000/-, for which the deceased is liable to pay the damages to the 2""^ respondent. It is further contended that the harvester was not insured with any insurance company by the date of accident, but plying the vehicle without insurance is to be penalized according to M.V.Act only and the 2"^ respondent purchased the vehicle without insurance and he is on his way to make full insure after proper verification and after the accident, the 2"^ respondent paid third party insurance. As the accident occurred due to negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased, hence the owner and insurer of motorcycle are proper and necessary parties, as they have not made as parties, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 12. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the award of the Tribunal below awarding compensation is on reasonable basis or not? 13. The evidence of RW-1 to 3 would show that the accident took place in the midnight and the cutter-bar of the harvester is exposed outside the machine and it is dark green injiojour and the same is not 9 visible during night time. It is also admitted that they stopped the vehicle on the middle of the road due to tyre burst. Even though they have taken precautionary measures, it appears that the parking lights are not switched on. If the parking lights were switched on, the deceased might be cautious and avoid the accident. If the same is taken into consideration, it is the duty of the respondents that immediately after breaking down of the vehicle, they could have informed about the vehicle condition to the highway authorities, but there is no evidence on record to show that the respondents have informed about the vehicle condition to the high way authorities. It is further pointed out that the police after investigation filed charge sheet against the 1®* respondent stating that he parked the harvesting machine negligently on the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased only, who drive the same without having valid driving license. 14. The learned tribunal opined that the accident took place due to the negligent act of the 1®* respondent in parking the harvester machine and there is no evidence on record to show that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased in riding the motorcycle. 15. PW-2 is an eye witness, who deposed about the negligence of driver of harvester machine. As the deceased who was the driver of motor cycle was not at fault, hence thej)wner and insurer of the motorcycle 10 need not be added as parties to the claim petition. For which, learned Tribunal is not convinced with the contention of learned counsel for the respondent. 16. On perusal of the Award passed by the learned Tribunal, it can be observed that though the respondents 1 to 3 in their chief affidavit has stated that the owner of the vehicle has taken all precautions to avoid accidents. The tribunal came to conclusion that the accident took place in the midnight and the cutter bar is exposed outside the machine, which in fact is in dark green in colour, which is not visible during the night time. It was also considered by the learned Tribunal that admittedly, the vehicle was stopped in the middle of the road due to tyre burst and in such a case, it is the duty of the respondents that immediately after such breakdown, thought that they would have informed to the Highways Authority, but no such information or steps had been initiated. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the respondents have taken all precautionary measures when admittedly harvester machine was stopped on the middle of the National Highway. Learned Tribunal also considered the fact that the police after thorough enquiry and after completion of the investigation, the Police filed charge sheet only against the 1®^ respondent stating that he parked the harvester machine negligently on the road without taking any precautionary measures. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly answered the issue No.1 therein in favour o^f the petitioners and directed 11 the respondents 1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 17. Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation. PW-1, who is none other than the mother of the deceased is examined, in her evidence it is stated that the deceased was aged 18 years and he was studying first year Engineering in RISE Engineering College, Valluru Village, at the time of accident and he was hale and healthy and hard working boy. In support of such contention, the petitioners have relied on Ex.A6 SSC Marks List of deceased; Ex.A7 Intermediate Certificate; Ex.A8 Transfer Certificate and Ex.A9 Identity Card issued by RISE Engineering College, Valluru. Considering the fact that the deceased was studying engineering first year and as well as marks obtained by him in SSC and Intermediate, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month and assessed the annual income of Rs. 72,000/- i.e (Rs. 6,000/- x 12 months). 18. As per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and Others”^ wherein it was held that in case, if the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be added towards further prospects, where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. ^ AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 5157 12 19. In the case on hand, as the deceased was 18 years old as on the date of the accident, therefore, an addition of 40% of the established be added towards future prospects. Therefore, annual income can income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,00,800/- i.e (Rs. 72,000/- + Rs. 28,800/- (40% addition). As the deceased was a bachelor,50% of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenditure as held in “Sar/a Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another”^. After deducting 30% towards personal expenditure, the contribution to the family would come to Rs. 50,400/- per annum. After applying the multiplier ‘18’ the total loss of income to the family of the deceased comes to Rs. 9,07,200/- (Rs. 50,400/- x 18) and assessed funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/-. In total the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.9,22,200/-. 20. As the claimants have lost their 18 years old son, who would be a support to their family in future, the Tribunal duly considering the fact that the deceased was studying in first year engineering and was hard working as per Ex.A6 and A7 have rightly considered the income of the deceased. Since there is no insurance policy to the offending vehicle, the respondents 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. ^ 2009 AG 1298 (SC) 13 21. Having regard to the above and on perusal of the Award passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.9,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, hence this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. was on \ 22. In so far as M.A.C.M.A.No. 161 of 2019 is concerned, learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the 1®* respondent and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motorcycle has awarded compensation in favour of the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 9,22,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2016 and that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim made by the 2'"'^ respondent i.e owner of the harvester to a tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages for the harvester. The learned Tribunal having considered the fact that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent act in stoppage of the harvester in the middle of National Highway without taking any precautionary measures have rightly dismissed the claim petition. In view of foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Appeals. 23. Accordingly, both Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribnunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Ongole. 2. One CC to Sri. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati ,Advocate 3. One CC to Ms. Sree Devi Ravuri, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, Advocate 5. Three CD Copies [OPUC] [OPUC] YM 4 HIGH COURT DATED : 05/05/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.155 of 2019 and 161 of 2019 THE M.A.C.M.AS ARE DISMISSED IN THE HIGH CXDURT OFANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLESMTJUSTICE V-SUUATHA jyjOTORACCIDENrCMLMISCaLAryEOUSAPPEALNO: 161 OF 2019 Between; Alakunta Raju, S/o. Venkati, aged 29 year, Occ. Business, R/o. nagar village, Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State. Sriram APPaiANT/PLAINTIFF AND Kodimela Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 52 years, R/o. D.No. 21-28 Darsi Road, Bhavani Center, Addanki, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDBrr/ RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to call for entire records connected to Award and Decree dated 28.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No 123 of 2017 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati for the Appellant and Sri. Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti for the Sole Respondent. the material / This Court doth order and decree as follows: That the appeal is be and hereby dismissed, (ii) That there shall be no order as to costs. (i) ■ SD/-A.VENUGOPALRAO ASSBTAm'REGISTRAR //TRUECOFY// SECTION OFFICSl To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribnunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Ongole. 2. Three CD Copies YM HIGH COURT DATED: 05/05/2025 decree IVIACMA.No.161 of 2019 THE MACMA IS DISMISSED w IN -mE HIGH CX)UFn-OFANDHRAPRADESH:: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESEm- THE HONOURABLESMTJUSTICE VSULIATHA MOTOR/ j^CMLMISCaiANEOUS APPEAL NO: 155 OF 2019 Betweien: Alakunta Raju, S/o. Vankati.aged 29 years,Occ:Business Sriram Nagar, Village, Manthani mandal, Karimnagar District, Telengana State H.No. 9-42/91/A, ..J\PPBXANT/2"‘'F MDENT AND 1. Kodimela Koteswaramma,W/o.Venkateswarlu,aged 49 years,R/o. D.No. 21-28, Darsi road, Bhavani center, Addanki, Prakasam Dist 2. Kodimela Venkateswarlu,S/o.Ramaiah, aged 52 years R/o.D.No. 21-28, Darsi road, Bhavani center, Addanki, Prakasam Dist .. .RESPONDENT/ PETITIONBR 3. Garapati gopi,S/o.Krishnamurthy,aged 28 years, D.No. 20-168, Sriram nagar, Manthani, Karimngar District-505184 ...RESPONDENT/ 1®^RESPONDENT % A Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act praying that the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the award and decree dated 28.08.2018 in MVOP. 83/2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Tribnunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Ongole passed claims Appeal cgming 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. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati for the Appellant and Ms. Sree Devi Ravuri,for the Respondent No.1&2 and none appeared for respondent 3. TTiis Court doth order and decree as follows: (i) That the appeal is be and hereby dismissed. That there shall be no order as to costs. (ii) SD/- A.VENU GOPAL RAO ASSBTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE copy// OFFICBt To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribnunal District Judge, Ongole. 2.Three CD Copies - Cum - Principal YM A HIGH COURT DATED: 05/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.155 of 2019 if 2 5JUL 2025 Co ★^<iCTentSecti2i^^ THE M.A.C.M.A IS DISMISSED