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: 4 OF 2019 Between: M/s United India Insurance Company Limited,TIRUPATHI,Rep .by its Divisional Manager,Holding its Office at Sreedevi Complex,Tilak Road, Tirupathi. ...APPELLANT AND 1. M Gayathri, W/o Late M.Tirumalaiah, Hindu, aged 32 years, R/o D.No. 1-6-696/C, Indira Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. M.Vandana, D/o Late M.Tirumalaiah, Hindu, aged 19 years, R/o D.No. 1-6-696/C, Indira Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3. M.Meghana, D/o Late M.Tirumalaiah, Hindu, aged 19 years, R/o D.No.1-6-696/C, Indira Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4. M.Lakshmamma, W/o Late MuniKrishnaiah, Hindu, aged 58 years, R/o D.No. 1-6-696/C, Indira Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 5. M.Radhakrishna, S/o.Doraswamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, R/o D.No.639, P.K.Layout, Tirupathi. , 6. D.Chandrasekhar Raju, S/o D.Venkatraju, Hindu,aged about 50years Hindu, Owner of the Ambassador Car bearing No.AP.o3.V.7049, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09-10-2018 passed in MVOP No. 150 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-Cum- X Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Appeal coming 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 Ms. S A V Ratnam, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri. O Udaya Kumar for the Respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- P U V BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// /V SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribuhal-Cum- X Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. Three CD Copies YM HIGH COURT DATE 0:05/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.4 of 2019 THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL IS DISMISSED / 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: d OF 9niQ Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09-10-2018 passed in MVOP No. 150 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-Cum- Tirupati. X Additional District Judge Between: M/s United India Insurance Company Limited,TIRUPATHI,Rep .by its Divisional Manager, Holding its Office at Sreedevi Tirupathi. Complex,Tilak Road ...APPELLANT AND 1. M Gayathri, W/o Late M.Tirumalaiah, Hindu, aged 32 years, R/o D.No. 1-6-696/C, Indira Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. M.Vandana, D/o Late M.Tirumalaiah, Hindu, aged 19 D.N0.1-6-696/C, Indira Nagar,; ^fupathi, Chittoor District. 3. M.Meghana, D/o Late M.Tirumalaiah, Hindu, aged 19 years, R/o D.No. 1-6-696/C, Indira Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4. M.Lakshmamma, W/o Late MuniKrishnaiah, Hindu, D.No. 1-6-696/C, Indira Nagar, fimpathi, Chittoor District. years, R/o aged 58 years, R/o X i i 5. M.Radhakrishna, S/o.Doraswamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, R/o D.No.639, P.K.Layout, Tirupathi. 6. D.Chandrasekhar Raju, S/o D.Venkatraju, Hindu,aged about SOyears Hindu, Owner of the Ambassador Gar bearing No.AP.o3.V.7049, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. j ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporhbf the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including execution of the order and decree dated 09-10-2018 passed in MVOP No.150 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-Gurn--X Additional District Judge Court Tirupati, pending disposal of the MAGMA. j Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. S A V Ratnam Counsel for the Respondents : Sri. 0 Udaya Kumar The Court made the following Judgrhent: .V f J ' APHC010971712018 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: 4/2019 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPONDENT(S) M Gayathri and others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.S AVRATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.0 UDAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACMA No.4 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal against the order and decree 09.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.150 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,51,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs Fifty one thousand only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased T.Tirumalaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 04.09.2015. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they 02. are arrayed before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: 03. nd and 3’’*^ petitioners are the The 1®^ petitioner is the wife, the 2 daughters and the 4^^ petitioner is the mother of deceased T.Tirumalaiah. On 04.09.2015 at about 6.00 a.m., the 4*'^ petitioner left the house to visit temples without informing the same in the house. Subsequently, the deceased M.Tirumalaiah, searched for her in the surrounding temples at Tirupati and could not find her. Fie suspected that she might have went to Eswara Temple at Srikalahasti. Therefore, he left the house at 9.30 p.m., on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP.03/L-7210, and went to Srikalahasti. At about 11.00 p.m., while he was going to Padmavathi Hotel, Merlapaka Village, on Srikalahasti-Renigunta road, the 1®* respondent, who was driver of 3 MACMA NoA of 2013 the 2^^ respondent’s Ambassador Car bearing registration No.AP.03A/-7049 came from back side in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle from behind, as a result, rider fell on the road and the vehicle ran over him and the head, face and chest cracked, parts spread on the road and died on the spot. Basing on the report, the Station House Officer, Yerupedu Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.68/2015, and a charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.366/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti under Section 304-A IPC and Section 134(b) read with 187 of M.V.Act. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 41 years at the time of accident and he was hale and healthy. He worked as a Bakery Master and was earning Rs.600/- per day, which he used to contribute to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners sought compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from respondents No.1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, respectively. 04. 05. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter, denying the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident and contended that the same was planted for the purpose of filing the claim petition in connivance with respondents No.1 and 2 to have wrongful gain by making huge claim against respondent No.3 as the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The petitioners have not produced any documentary proof as to the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It was further 06. 4 VS,J MACMA No.4 of 2019 amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is a speculative one and the same is excessive. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. contended that the the Tribunal framed the following issues for Basing on the pleadings 07. trial: “1. Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negiigent driving of R. 1 whiie driving Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 03 V 7049? 2. Whether there is any contributory negligence 3. Whether the petitioners are whom? 3. To what relief?” On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3, R.W.sf to 3 examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. behalf of motorcyclist? on entitled for compensation, if so, from 08. Exs. was and after considering the oral and After hearing both parties documentary evidence on against respondent Nos.1 to 3 09. record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.12,51,000/- with the said amount from the date of filing of the interest at 9% per annum on petition to the date of deposit. Respondents No.1 to 3 were jointly and the said amount within 30 days from the date of the severally held liable to pay order. The 1"^ petitioner was held entitled to Rs.6,51,000/- and costs. The 2 nd held entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- each. The 4»’ petitioner and 3'’'’ petitioners were held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1 petitioner was permitted to St was 5 MACMA No.4 of 201 withdraw 50% of the amount, and the remaining 50% was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of two years. The amounts awarded to the 2 and 3'''^ petitioners were directed to be kept in fixed deposits until they attain the age of majority. The 4*^ petitioner was permitted to withdraw the amount apportioned to her with accrued interest. nd 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.3/insurance preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to discuss the nature of the accident and the contentions of the rival parties. Further, the Tribunal did not decide Issue No.1 either in favour of the petitioners or in favour of the respondents. Thus, the appellant claimed that the Tribunal failed to record a specific finding as to whose negligence contributed to the accident. It is further stated that the driver and owner of the car who were examined as RW2 and RW3 respectively have categorically stated that neither the alleged crime vehicle nor the respondent - driver was involved in the said accident. Therefore, the appellant contended that findings of the Tribunal against such evidence were made without deciding Issue No.1. The appellant further stated that the rest of the order, including the findings about age, occupation, income and future income of the deceased are improper and the awarding of the huge amount of Rs.12,51,000/- under various heads, was highly excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 11. 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. 6 VS,J MACMA No.4 of 2019 Now the point for consideration is; Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: The main ground urged by insurance company is that the Tribunal has failed to give a finding on issue No.1 either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the respondents. Issue No.1 reads as under: 13. “1. Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negiigent driving ofR.1 whiie driving Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 03 V 7049? However, on a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that in para No.11, Tribunal has elaborately discussed on issue No.1. A perusal of the said paragraph would clearly show that except taking a plea that a false case was foisted against the driver of the crime vehicle, neither of the respondents have taken any steps to challenge the charge sheet. The Tribunal has also considered the fact that RW2, who is the driver of the crime vehicle was produced by the owner of the vehicle was arrested and released on bail as per Ex.A2, which is the charge sheet, to establish the fact that RW2 is responsible for the said accident. RW3, who is owner of the crime vehicle, has also admitted that he has not taken any steps even after coming to know that his Ambassador Car was involved in a criminal case by Yerpedu Police. Having considered the matter in detail, the Tribunal rejected the plea of respondent No.3 that a false criminal case was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle and observed that as the insurance policy in favour of the 14. 7 V'S, MACMA No.4 of20iy^’^ crime vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident even as per Ex.B1 policy and as there are no violation of the policy conditions established by respondent No.3, respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. As issue No.1 was discussed in detail and decided as against respondents No.1 to 3 making them jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal to that effect needs no interference. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants contended that the deceased was working as Bakery Master and used to earn Rs.600/- per day, as the petitioners have failed to file any proof 16. to the extent of his earnings, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to take the daily income of the deceased at Rs.240/- per day i.e., Rs.7,200/- per month th which is just and proper. As there are four petitioners, after deducting 1/4 towards his personal expenses, it comes to Rs.5,400/- per month and after adding 25% towards his future expenses, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi^, it comes to Rs.6,750/- per month and accordingly his annual income was fixed at Rs.81,000/- (Rs.6,750 X 12). Applying the relevant multiplier of ‘14’ applicable for the age of the deceased i.e., 41 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court \n Sarla Verma v. Delhi Tj^sport Corporation^, an ^ 2017 ACJ 2700 " 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA No.4 of 2019 amount of Rs. 11,34,000/- (Rs.81,000 X 14) was awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, (referred supra), the claimants were awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,51,000/- 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 petitioner. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. I Sd/- P U V BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// Iv SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-Cum- X Additional District Judge Tirupati. 2. One CC to Ms. S A V Ratnam, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. O Udaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies YM HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.4 of 2019 M 2 5JUL 2025 1 Ol C>» ^vCi|neiitS«cllaiX«y THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL IS DISMISSED