IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 6 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act the order 26-07-2018 in MVOP No. 133/2014 Accidents Claims tribunal Cum IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Between: United India Insurance Co Ltd, TP HUB, Regional office, Hyderabad, Rep by its Manager aggrieved by on the file of the Motor ...Appellant/R-2 AND 1. A Bhanumathi, W/o late A.Rajababu, 36 yrs, Modugulapalem village, Yerpedu mandal Chittoor Dist 2. A.Rajasekhar, S/o late A.Rajababu, 13 yrs, Modugulapalem village, Yerpedu mandal Chittoor Dist 3. A.Sathish, S/o late A.Rajababu, 9 yrs, Modugulapalem village, Yerpedu mandal Chittoor Dist (Petitioners 2 and 3 are Minors rep by their Mother/Guardian 1"* Petitioner A.Bhanumathi) 4. A.Polisetty, S/o Pedda Govinda Setty, 69 yrs, Modugulapalem village, Yerpedu mandal Chittoor Dist 5. A.Yellamma, W/o A Poll Setly, 60 yrs, Modugulapalem mandal Chittoor Dist 6^ Amaraja Batteries rep by Prasad, R/o Central Marking Begumpet, Hyderabad village, Yerpedu Officer, i , '^4 ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2niQ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to grant stay of all further proceedings in MVOP 133 of 2014 the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl.District Judge Chittoor District at Tirupati on Counsel for the Appellant; Sri. TVS Prabhakara Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Sri Sudarsana Rao G The Court made the following: Rao 2 % VS,J MAGMA No.6of2019 JUDGMENT: The present civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the United India Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 26.07.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.133 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna!-cum-IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.6,77,500/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to the petitioners/claimants on account of the death of the deceased A. Raja Babu in a motor accident that occurred on 02.09.2011. The appellant is the 2'''^ respondent, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the petitioners and respondent No.6/owner of the offending vehicle is the 1®‘ respondent before the Tribunal. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioners/claimants, in brief, is as follows: 4. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petition^ Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the (i) deceased. On 02.09.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased (ii) A. Raja Babu was proceeding on his motor cycle i^., Yamaha Crux 3 'm VS.J MACMA No.6of2019 bearing registration No.AP-03/L-4668 and reached near banco Factory on Tirupati-Srikalahasti Main Road, the driver of an Ambassador car bearing registration No.AP-09/R-2829 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased which was coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which the deceased fell down, sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. On the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, a case in Crime No.59 of 2011 was registered on the file of Srikalahasti Rural Police Station for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. (iii) It was the case of the petitioners/claimants that the deceased, who was aged about 39 years on the date of accident, was hale and healthy and earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing coolie work and also earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from cultivation and due to his sudden death in the road accident, they lost their sole breadwinner. Hence, they sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 1®^ and 2"^"^ respondents, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Before the Tribunal, the 1®‘ respondent-owner of the offending 5. vehicle remained ex parte. 4 VS.J MACMANo.6of2019 The 2^^ respondent-insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit 6. resisting the claim of the petitioners. It was contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license and that the offending vehicle had no valid permit to ply on the road as on the date of accident. It was further contended that the offending vehicle was not insured with the 2^^ respondent-insurance Company and, nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the thus, the 2 petitioners. It was further contended that the petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence to establish the earnings of the deceased and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive. Hence, the 2""^ respondent-insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following 7. issues for trial; “1. Whether the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration No.AP-09/R-2829 by the driver causing death of the deceased A. Raja Babu? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, as to what amount and from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were 8. nd examined and Exs.M to A4 were marked. On behalf of the 2 5 VS,J MACMA No.6of2019 respondent-insurance Company, its Manager was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked. 9. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs.6,77,500/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, and directed the 2"^^ respondent to deposit the said amount of compensation within one month from the date of award. Out of the compensation so awarded, petitioner No. 1/wife of the deceased was held entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-, petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 were held entitled to Rs.1,25,000/- each and petitioner No.4 was held entitled to Rs.1,02,500/- with respective accrued interest. On deposit of the amount awarded, petitioner No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest and costs and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5/parents of the deceased were permitted to withdraw their respective shares along with interest accrued thereon, while the amounts granted to petitioner Nos.2 and 3/minor children of the deceased were directed to be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. Further, the petitioners were directed to pay the balance court fee for 6 ■ ^ VS,J MACMA No.6of2019 the excess compensation awarded, within a period of one month from the date of award. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the 2^^ respondent-insurance Company preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the alleged accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident itself was not proved by the petitioners. The quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioners was also questioned on the ground that it is exorbitant and excessive and it is contended that the Tribunal ought not to have granted excess compensation without there being sufficient evidence to substantiate the income of the deceased. It is, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned award. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, having reiterated 11. the above grounds, mainly contends that the impugned award is not maintainable on the sole ground that the crime vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company and, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and, therefore, prays to allow the appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners/ respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein would support the impugned award, contending that Ex.B1-policy marked in the evidence of R.W.1 would 12. 7 VS.J MACMANo.6of2019 show that the crime vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal being just and reasonable, it does not warrant any interference. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the appeal. Now the point for consideration is; 13. Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference by this Court? POINT: 14. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company and, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 15. A perusal of the impugned award as well as the trial Court record reveals that on behalf of the Insurance Company, its Manager was examined as R.W.1 and in his evidence. Ex.Bi-copy of the insurance policy was marked. However, in the appendix of evidence. which sets out the details of the witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the respective parties, Ex.BI was not mentioned under the column pertaining to the exhibits marked on behalf of the respondents and instead, it was erroneously recorded as 'nil'. This appears to be a mere typographical omission. Notwithstanding this, it's apparent from VS,J n MACMA No.6of2019 impugned award that R.W.1 has affirmed Ex.B1-policy and categorically deposed that Ex.B1-policy was valid and in force as on the date of accident. Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal has covered under a valid the rightly held that the offending vehicle was insurance policy issued by the 2^^ respondent-insurance Company vide EX.B1, and that there were no violations of the policy conditions. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company stands untenable. To establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners/ claimants have relied upon the testimony of P.W.2, who was an eye- the incident. P.W.2 has categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of 16. witness to the offending vehicle and the deceased, having sustained severe bleeding injuries in the said accident, died on the spot. A perusal of the impugned award shows that nothing adverse was elicited in the examination of P.W.2 to discredit or discard his evidence, considered the evidence of P.W.2/eye-witness coupled with Cross- Having Ex.A1-copy of F.I.R. registered in connection with the accident and of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending Ex.A2-copy vehicle. the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred 9 VS,J MACMA No.6 of 2019 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and no interference is warranted with the said finding. 17. Coming to the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the case of the petitioners was that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month by doing coolie work and also earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from cultivation. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the same, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. In the opinion of this Court, the said assessment is proper and requires no interference. Following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^, upon deducting 1/4**^ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure, his contribution to the family was calculated at Rs.3,375/- per month, amounting to Rs.40,500/- per annum (Rs.3,375/- X 12). By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘15’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 39 years, as recorded in Ex.A3-lnquest Report and Ex.A4-Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.6,07,500/- towards the loss of contribution to the family, which 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 awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate ^ 2009 ACJ 1298 10 VS,J MACMA No.6of2019 Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi^, which cannot be found fault with. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.6,77,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The point is answered accordingly. 18. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 22017 ACJ 2700 I Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims tribunal Cum IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. TVS Prabhakara Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Sudarsana Rao G Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi ^ Thftxo Pn Pr»niQC HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA.No.e of 2019 X 25JUN 2025 m Co ^ Current Section DISMISSING THE MAGMA \ V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 6 OF 2019 Between: United India Insurance Co Ltd, TP HUB, Regional office, Hyderabad, Rep by its Manager ...Appellant/R-2 AND 1. A Bhanumathi, W/o late A.Rajababu, 36 yrs, Modugulapalem village, Yerpedu mandal Chittoor Dist 2. A.Rajasekhar, S/o late A.Rajababu, 13 yrs, Modugulapalem village, Yerpedu mandal Chittoor Dist 3. A.Sathish, S/o late A.Rajababu, 9 yrs, Modugulapalem village, Yerpedu mandal Chittoor Dist (Petitioners 2 and 3 are Minors rep by their Mother/Guardian 1 Petitioner A.Bhanumathi) 4. A.Polisetty, S/o Pedda Govinda Setty, 69 yrs, Modugulapalem village Yerpedu mandal Chittoor Dist St 5. A.Yellamma, W/o A.Poli Setty, 60 yrs, Modugulapalem village, Yerpedu mandal Chittoor Dist 6. Amaraja Batteries rep by Prasad, R/o Central Marking Officer, Begumpet, Hyderabad A, ...Respondents ■ : -s; Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order 26-07-2018 in MVOP No. 133/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal Cum IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri.T V S Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Sudarsana Rao G, Advocate for Respondent No.1 to 5. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the Motor civil miscellaneous appeal be and is hereby dismissed: 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Motor Accidents Claims tribunal Cum IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District 2. Three CD copies high court DATED:02/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.6 of 2019 of g 2 5 JUN 2025 | ^ . Current Seciion DISMISSING THE MACMA