i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 15 OF 2019 Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, R.S. Circle, Kurnool Town, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Respondent No.4 AND 1. U.Bharathi, W/o.Late P.Sreedhar, Hindu, aged about 20 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.45/24K/47-A1, Near Sreelakshmi High School, Venkataramana Colony, SAP Camp, Kurnool-518003. 2. P.Rushi, S/o.Late P.Sreedhar, Hindu, aged about 6 years. Minor, School, High Sreelakshmi R/0.H.N0.45/24K/47-A1, Near Venkataramana Colony, SAP Camp, Kurnool-518003. 3. P.Rutviz, S/o.Late P.Sreedhar, Hindu, aged about 5 years. Minor, R/0.H.N0.45/24K/47-A1, Near Sreelakshmi High School, Venkataramana Colony, SAP Camp, Kurnool-518003. 4. P.Hanumanthamma, W/o.Late Muni Raju, Hindu, aged about 69 years, R/0.H.N0.45/24K/47-A1, Near Sreelakshmi High School, Venkataramana Colony, SAP Camp, Kurnool-518003. (Respondents 2 and 3 are minors, rep. by their mother, first Respondent, U.Bharathi) ...Respondents 1-4/Petitioners 5. G.Venugopal, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 50 years, R/o.H.No.81-290, Ramakrishnanagar, Near Ramachandra Nagar, Kurnool Town. / 6. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Thula Complex Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool. 7. V.Ravi Sankar, S/o.V.Subbarayudu, Ramalingeswara Nagar, Kurnool town. 8. V.Sudharshan, S/o.V.Buchanna, 49 years, H.No.79-4-17, NTR Nagar H.N0.45-142-33A, Kurnool. ...Respondents No.5-8/Respondents No.1-3, 5 Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Decree and Judgment, dated 25-07-2018 passed in MVOP.No.198 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Ms.M.Abhigna, Advocate representing Sri Javvadi Sarath Chandra, Advocate for Appellant, and of Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and none appeared for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE; 1. That the Appeal be and the same hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there be no order as to costs in this MACMA. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Two CD Copies 2. RAM V i HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 DECREE of MACMA.No.15 of 2019 *( 0 8 OCT 20?5 V‘‘ •fr . i’’ >sCyrrentSecti|a.^ DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 15 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Decree and Judgment, dated 25-07-2018 passed in MVOP.No.198 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, R.S. Circle, Kurnool Town, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Respondent No.4 AND ■ 'i 1. U.Bharathi, W/o.Late P.Sfeedhar, Hindu, aged about 20 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. Nd.45/24K/47-A1 Near Sreelakshmi High School, Venkataramana Colony, SAP Camp, Kurnool-518003. 2. P.Rushi, S/o.Late P.Sreedhar, Hindu, aged about 6 years. Minor, Near Sreelakshmi High School, R/0.H.N0.45/24K/47-A1, Venkataramana Colony, SAP Camp, Kurnool-518003. 3. P.Rutviz, S/o.Late P.Sreedhar, Hindu, aged about 5 years. Minor, R/0.H.N0.45/24K/47-A1 Venkataramana Colony, SAP Camp, Kurnool-518003. Near Sreelakshmi High School 4. P.Hanumanthamma, W/o.Late Muni Raju, Hindu, aged about 69 years, R/0.H.N0.45/24K/47-A1, ■*.1.3.-; Near Sreelakshmi Venkataramana Colony, SAP Camp, Kurnool-518003. High School (Respondents 2 and 3 are minors, rep. by their mother, first Respondent, U.Bharathi) ...Respondents 1-4/Petitioners G.Venugopal, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 50 years, R/o.H.No.81-290, Ramakrishnanagar, Near Ramachandra Nagar, Kurnool Town. 5. 6. The Pivisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Thula Complex Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool. Sankar, 7. V.Ravi S/o.V.Subbarayudu, Ramalingeswara Nagar, Kurnool town. V.Sudharshan, S/o.V.Buchanna, 49 years, H.No.79-4-17, NTR Nagar Kurnool. H.N0.45-142-33A, 8. ...Respondents No.5-8/Respondents No.1-3, 5 lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 55 days in preferring the against the orders passed in MVOP.No.198 of 2012 dated 25-07-2018, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Kurnool. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition filed 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 MVOP.No.198 of 2012, dated 25-07-2018 on the file of MAC Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Kurnool, pending disposal of the Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant Ms.M.Abhigna, Advocate representing Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4:Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6:None appeared Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8:- The Court made the following: APHC010974692018 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: 15/2019 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND U Bharathi and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACMA No.15 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal against the order and decree 25.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.198 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool - cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 11,69,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased P.Sreedhar in a motor accident that occurred on 27.11.2011. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: The 1®^ petitioner is the wife, the 2^^ and 3'"^ petitioners are sons and the 4^^ petitioner is the mother of deceased P.Sreedhar. Respondent No.1 is owner of the lorry, respondent No.2 is insurer of the lorry, respondent No.3 is owner of the car, respondent No.4 is the insurer of the car(appellant herein) and respondent No.5 is driver of the lorry. On 27.11.2011, the deceased, along with his cousin brother Venkataramana Raju, his friend Chinna Rajana and son-in-law Prabhakar @ Prabhudas, were travelling from Gudur to Kurnool in a car bearing registration No.AP 21 Q 8686. After completion of their work at Gudur, when they reached 3 VS,J MACMA No.15 of 2019 near a bridge at Peddapadu Village at about 3.15 p.m., a lorry bearing registration No.AP 21 V 2278, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and hit the motor car wherein the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased died on the spot, and the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries and one Prabhudas succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Government General Hospital, Kurnool. The petitioners contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the lorry. They also stated that the deceased was aged about 38 years and worked as a Technical Supervisor in Parimala Auto Agencies at Kurnool, and earning a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month, and also doing real estate business and earning an income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The petitioners further contended that, due to the sudden demise of the deceased, they had lost their bread winner. Therefore, the petitioners sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents. 04. 05. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 owner of the lorry, respondent No.3-owner of the car, respondent No.5-driver of the lorry remained exparte. Respondent No.2/Insurer of the lorry, filed a counter denying the manner in which the accident occurred, as well as the age and income of the deceased prior to the accident. The contention of respondent No.2 is that accident occurred due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor car, who drove the vehicle at high speed on the extreme right side of 06. 1S^ '==5& 4 VS,J MACMA No.15 of 2019 the road and dashed the lorry coming from opposite direction, which going on left side of the road. The petitioners and inmates of the was car, in collusion with the police, got registered a false case as against the driver of the lorry. They have stated that they obtained photographs of the accident spot, which clearly show that respondent No.l’s lorry was going on the left side of the road and driver of the car drove it negligently and came on right side of the road, and dashed the lorry. They further stated that as the deceased who was driving the car died in the accident, police got registered the case against the driver of respondent No.1 lorry to help petitioners to claim compensation. 07. Respondent No.4/insurance company of the car, filed a counter denying the accident manner in which it was occurred. They have stated that police investigation shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Therefore, they are not responsible to pay compensation to the petitioners, being the insurer of the motor car. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 08. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident took place as stated in the petition ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount, and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5 VS,J MACMA No.15 of 2019 On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.M to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W.1 and R.W.3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.4, R.W.2 was examined and Ex.B5 was marked. 09. 10. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 5, awarding compensation of Rs.11,69,000/- with interest at 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents No.1, 2 and 5 were jointly severally held liable to pay 50% of compensation i.e., Rs.5,84,500/-, and respondents No.3 and 4 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the remaining 50% of compensation i.e., Rs.5,84,500/- to the petitioners, with proportionate costs and interest, and are directed to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of the award. On such deposit, an amount of Rs.5,69,000/- with proportionate interest and costs was awarded to petitioner No.1. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each was awarded to petitioners No.2 and 3, with proportionate interest, and Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded to petitioner No.4. On such deposit, petitioner No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.1,69,000/- with proportionate interest and costs, and the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with proportionate interest was directed to be kept in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The amounts awarded to petitioners No.2 and 3 were directed to be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority. 6 VS,J MAGMA No.15 of 2019 Petitioner No.4 was permitted to withdraw her share of the compensation with proportionateinterest. 11. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.4/insurer of preferred this appeal contending that there was no negligence on part of the car bearing No.AP 21 Q 8686 but there is sole negligence on the part of the another vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 21 V 2278. The Tribunal also failed to observe that the police filed the charge sheet against the driver of the lorry after thorough investigation. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident who categorically deposed that the lorry was driven in rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The Tribunal also failed to observe that the investigating officer- RW3 clearly deposed that they have registered a case against the driver of the lorry as there was negligence on the part of the lorry. The Tribunal erred car of and came to the conclusion that there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the both the vehicles involved in the accident. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 7 VS,J MACMA No.15 of 2019 POINT: A perusal of the award shows that Ex.B3 rough sketch of the scene of offence was marked in the evidence of RW3/Sub-lnspector of Police, who registered the criminal case in connection with the accident. Ex.B3 rough sketch of scene of offence would show that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. RW1 also admitted that as per Ex.B1, the lorry has not crossed white line on the middle of the road. PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident also categorically admitted that Ex.B1 photograph would show that the lorry was on the right side, whereas the car has crossed the middle line and went underneath the lorry. Having perused Exs.BI and B3, the Tribunal opined that the deceased as well as respondent No.5 driving the lorry failed to take proper precautions to avert the accident while proceeding at the turning of the road. Hence, the Tribunal held that there was equal negligence the part of the deceased and respondent No.5 in causing the accident and accordingly, fixed the contributory negligence as 50:50 on the driver of the car and driver of the lorry, which is just and reasonable and no interference is warranted therewith. 14. on So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants filed Ex.A10-Salary Certificate of the deceased. The said document shows that the deceased worked in Parimala Auto Agencies at Kurnool and used to Rs.12,000/- per month. To prove the contents of Ex.AIO, PW3, who claims to be the owner of Parimala Auto Agmcie^as examined and he 15. earn 8 vsj MACMA No.15 of 2019 confirmed the issuance of Ex.AIO. However, considering the educational qualification and the age of the deceased, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to fix his monthly income as Rs. 12,000/-, which is just and reasonable. Though the petitioners have claimed that the deceased was also engaged in a real estate business and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, they did not file any document to prove the same. Therefore, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.12,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.1,44,000/- per annum (12,000 X 12). As the deceased was earning a fixed salary, 40% of his income was added towards future prospects, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi ^ , and accordingly, his monthly income was arrived at Rs.2,01,600/-, which cannot th be found fault with. After considering the number of dependents as four, 1/4 of the income of the deceased was deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs.50,400/- per annum. After deducting his personal expenses, the remaining amount is Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.2,01,600 - Rs.50,400). Applying the relevant multiplier ‘15’ for the age group the deceased i.e., 38 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation^, the Tribunal has arrived at the loss of dependencyis Rs.22,68,000/- (Rs.1,51,200/- X 15). \ Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sef/7/(supra), the claimants were entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and " 2017 ACJ 2700 ^ 2009 AG 1298 9 VS,J MACMA No.15 of 2019 Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total compensation, thus, amounts to Rs.23,38,000/-. However, as it was also established that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also, which was assessed at 50%, the total awarded amount was reduced by 50%, and accordingly, a total compensation of Rs.11,69,000/- was awarded to the claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal, following the aforesaid decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.11,69,000/-. Out of which, 50% liability fixed on respondents No.1, 2 and 5 and remaining 50% was fixed on respondents No.3 and 4, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the claimants. was Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned iii the appeal. 16. i f i 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional 1. The Chairman, District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of A.P at Amaravati. 5. Two CD Copies BSV RAM HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 JUDGMENT AND DECREE MACMA.No.15of 2019 fa D 8 OCT 2025 4?) JvQjrrent ^'^SgeaicjssS^ DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS