1 APHC010047732019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 90/2019 Between: National Insurance Company Limited ...APPELLANT AND Duvvuri Yeeswaramma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. MUTEVI MURALIKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K KOUTILYA 2. K ANANDA RAO The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order dated 24.09.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.86 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Prakasam, Ongole, whereby the said M.V.O.P. filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein against the appellant/insurer and respondent No.8 herein/owner-cum-rider of the crime vehicle, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of one Duvvuri Srinivasulu in a motor accident, was allowed in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs by awarding compensation of Rs.4,70,950/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondent No.2 being the insurer is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with costs and interest within one month from the date of this order. Out of the awarded amount, the 1st petitioner being the wife, is hereby awarded an amount of Rs.3,20,950/-; the petitioner No.2 being un-married daughter of the deceased, is hereby awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioners No.3 to 7 who are married and major children of the deceased, are hereby awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- each. On such deposit of awarded amount by the respondents, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw half of the amount allotted to her with costs and proportionate interest amount and the remaining amount shall be deposited in her name for a period of two years in any Nationalized Bank. The petitioner No.2 is permitted to withdraw half of the amount allotted to her with proportionate interest and the remaining amount shall be deposited in her name for a period of one year in any Nationalized Bank. The petitioners No.3 to 7 are permitted to withdraw their entire compensation awarded to them with proportionate interest. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5.000/-.” 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: 3 Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimants Nos.2 to 7 are the children of the deceased Duvvuri Srinivasulu. On 24.10.2016, in the early hours, while the deceased along with his sons and relatives, after conducting the funeral of the father of the deceased, was proceeding to his house by walk on the main road towards S.C. Colony, the respondent No.1 drove his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 27 UU TR 0411 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and was immediately shifted to Kotareddy Hospital, Kandukur, in 108 ambulance for treatment. While undergoing treatment in the said hospital, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Based on the report of claimant No.4, the Station House Officer, Kandukur Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.155 of 2016 under Section 304(A) of IPC and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.1. The claimants contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.4,00,000/- per annum, by doing cultivation and wood business and due to his sudden demise in the road accident, they lost their breadwinner. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2, insurer and driver of the crime vehicle respectively. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. 4 05. Respondent No.2/insurer filed a written statement, opposing the claim petition, mainly on the grounds that the respondent No.1 has no driving license to drive the motor cycle at the relevant point of time and the motorcycle alleged to have caused the accident was not insured with respondent No.2 and the certificate of policy mentioned in the claim petition is not tallying with the series of policies issued by the respondent No.2. It was further averred that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and the rate of interest claimed is also on higher side. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the death of the deceased Duvvuri Srinivasulu had occurred due to the injuries received in the road accident that occurred on 24.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda Glamour Motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 UU 0411 by 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1- policy certificate was marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.4,70,950/- payable with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment by respondent 5 Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, and apportioned the compensation amount amongst the claimants as indicated in the operative portion extracted above. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/insurer preferred this appeal contending that as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1/ owner-cum-rider of the crime motor cycle did not possess valid driving license and when the same is evident from Ex.A4-MVI Report and Ex.A5-charge sheet, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim against the insurer and fixed the entire liability on the owner-cum-rider of the crime vehicle. It is further contended that the amount of earnings of the deceased, as assessed by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.4,500/- per month, is on higher side and the compensation is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by respondent No.1, the claimants relied upon the evidence of P.W.2-eye witness and Exs.A1, A4 and A5. A perusal of the record reveals that P.W.2 has categorically deposed that on the fateful day, himself and the deceased along with his relatives conducted funerals of his grandfather Singaiah and after completion of rituals, while they were returning back to their house by walk on the main rod, the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 27 UU TR 0411 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased, as a result 6 of which the deceased fell on road and sustained bleeding injuries. Exs.A1 and A5, attested copy of FIR and charge sheet respectively, would show that the police registered a case in Cr.No.155 of 2016 of Kandukur Town Police Station against respondent No.1/owner-cum-rider of the motor cycle, investigated into the crime and laid a charge sheet against him for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. Though the insurer took a plea that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to substantiate that plea. Thus, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2-eye-witness coupled with Exs.A1 and A5/attested copies of FIR and charge sheet, and also Ex.A4-MVI report, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime motor cycle by respondent No.1. 12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.4,00,000/- per annum by attending agricultural works and doing wood business. However, no documentary evidence was filed before the Tribunal to show that the deceased was earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has observed that it was elicited during the cross-examination of P.W.2 that it was mentioned in Ex.P2- Inquest Report that the deceased was an agricultural coolie. In view of the same, following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 , the Tribunal has taken the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, which cannot be found fault with. In National Insurance 1 2011 (6) ALD 75 (S.C.) 7 Company v. Pranay Sethi2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income, where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, should be regarded as necessary method of computation. In the instant case, admittedly, the deceased was self-employed and as per the inquest report, the age of the deceased was 60 years. Thus, the Tribunal, by adding 10% of the established income to the annual income of the deceased, has rightly arrived at the annual income of the deceased as Rs.59,400/-. After deducting 1/4th of his income towards personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘9’ applicable for the age group of 56 to 60 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of earnings to be Rs.4,00,950/-. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 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.4,70,950/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. 13. So far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, it is to be noted that Ex.B1-Policy certificate would disclose that the crime motor cycle was validly insured with respondent No.2/Insurer and the policy was in force 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2009 ACJ 1298 8 as on the date of accident. Though it was contended by respondent No.2/Insurer that the rider-cum-owner of the motor cycle did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident, which is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the fact remains that respondent No.2/insurer did not examine the RTA authorities, such as Motor Vehicle Inspector, or the owner of the crime vehicle, to prove that the rider-cum-owner of the vehicle did not possess valid driving license. Admittedly, the burden lies on the insurer to prove that there is no valid license in favour of the driver of the vehicle, which the insurer has failed to discharge. In view of the same and since the crime vehicle was insured with the insurer and Ex.B1-policy certificate was in force as on the date of accident, the Tribunal held the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. This Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award. 14. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the insurance company is always at liberty to pay the compensation amount and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 21.03.2025 KGR