APHC010130922006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the twentieth day of December, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos.3288 of 2005, 902, 903, 915 of 2006 and 2202 of 2012 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3288 of 2005 Between: The National Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant and D.Logeswari and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. T. S. Rayalu Counsel for the respondents: 1. O.Udaya Kumar 2. J. Ugranarasimha 3. V.Veerabhadra Chary 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.902 of 2006 Between: The National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant and K. Elumalai and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. T. S. Rayalu Counsel for the respondents: 1. M. P. Chandramouli 2. V. Veerabhadra Chary Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.903 of 2006 Between: The National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant and M.Rajeswari and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. T. S. Rayalu Counsel for the respondents: 1. M. P. Chandramouli 2. V. Veerabhadra Chary 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.915 of 2006 Between: The National Insurance Company Ltd ...Appellant and P. Gowri and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. T. S. Rayalu Counsel for the respondents: 1. M. P. Chandramouli 2. V. Veerabhadra Chary Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2202 of 2012 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant and S. Hemamalini Devi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. V.Veerabhadra Chary Counsel for the respondents: 1. V. Eswaraiah Chowdary 2. Suri Babu Puppala 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3288 of 2005, 902, 903, 915 of 2006 and 2202 of 2012 The Court made the following common JUDGMENT: The common case of the claimants in all cases is briefly as follows: a. On 06.06.2000, when the deceased and the injured were travelling in a van bearing No.ATC 2399 from Renigunta to go to Tirupathi, when the van reached near Patel Timber Depot on the Renigunta - Tirupathi main road, at about 11:00 A.M., the driver of the van tried to overtake a lorry in a rash and negligent manner and at the same time, the lorry bearing No.ABC 4790 coming in the opposite direction was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and both the van and lorry collided against each other due to which Dhanapal, Kadirivan, M.Mani and P.Hari died and S.Hemamalini Devi sustained injuries. The S.H.O. of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2000 under Section 304-A, 338 and 279 I.P.C. b. Ch. Kanakadurga is the owner and National Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the lorry bearing No. ABC 4790. V.Mohan is the owner and Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the van bearing No.ATC 2399. 2. Since all the claims arose out of the same accident, though awards were passed separately, some on same day or some on different days and some by the same or different Tribunal, to avoid conflicting findings, a common judgment is passed in all these appeals. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 22.06.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.551 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 4. The appellant is National Insurance Company Ltd., / respondent No.2 and the respondents Nos.1 to 4 are the claimants and the respondents Nos.5 and 7 are the respondents Nos.1 and 4 before the Tribunal. The case against the respondent No.6 was dismissed for default on 06.01.2012. 5. The specific case of the claimants is briefly as follows: The claimant No.1 was the wife and the claimants Nos.2 to 4 are minor children of Dhanapal (herein after referred as ‘deceased’). The deceased was aged about 44 years and earning Rs.6,900/- per month as Grade II Technician in South Central Railway, Tirupati and contributing the same to his family. The claimants alone are the dependents on his earnings. The respondent No.3 is the owner and the respondent No.4 is the insurer of the van. Therefore, the claimants seek compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- payable by all the respondents with joint and several liability. 6. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 / claimant No.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked as evidence. On behalf of the respondents, a copy of insurance policy of the lorry bearing No.ABC 4790 was marked as Ex.B1. 7. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed in negligently causing the accident and negligence was apportioned as 30% : 70% between the drivers of the lorry and the van respectively. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.6,900/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of it, his annual contribution to the family was assessed at Rs.4,600/-. Since the deceased was found to be aged about 46 years, by applying multiplier 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 ‘13’, the compensation towards loss of earnings was calculated as Rs.7,17,600/-. In addition thereto, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and guidance to the claimants Nos.2 to 4; and Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection. Thus, in total, Rs.7,72,600/- was awarded. Interest was granted @ 9% p.a. payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The liability was fastened on all the respondents with joint and several liability, however at the rate of 30% : 70% as indicated above. 8. M.A.C.M.A.No.902 of 2006 was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 26.02.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.247 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 9. The appellant is the National Insurance Company Limited / respondent No.4, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 are the claimants Nos.1 to 3 and the respondents Nos.4 to 6 are the respondents Nos.1 to 3 before the Tribunal. 10. The specific case of the claimants is briefly as follows: The claimant No.1 was the father of Kadirivan @ Kadirivelu (herein after referred as deceased) and the claimants Nos.2 and 3 are the siblings of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 25 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as barber and contributing the same to his family. The claimants alone are the dependents on his earnings. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 / Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the van. The respondent No.3 is the owner and the respondent No.4 / National Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the lorry. Therefore, the claimants 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 seek compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- payable by all the respondents with joint and several liability. 11. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked as evidence. On behalf of the respondents, copy of insurance policy of the respondent No.4 was marked as Ex.B1. 12. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed in negligently causing the accident and fastened liability on all the respondents. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day and as the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident unmarried at the age of 25 years, age of father of the deceased was taken into consideration for evaluating multiplier under Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the father of deceased was found to be aged about 55 years, multiplier ‘11’ was taken. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and his annual contribution to his family was arrived at Rs.36,000/-. After calculating with multiplier ‘11’ to his annual contribution and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards expenses, Rs.2,64,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. Rs.500/- was awarded towards transportation charges, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.500/- was granted towards damage of clothes, Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards loss of expectation of life. Thus, in total Rs.2,83,000/- was awarded. Interest was granted @ 9% p.a. payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The liability was fastened on all the respondents with joint and several liability. 13. M.A.C.M.A.No.903 of 2006 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 26.02.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.248 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 14. The appellant is National Insurance Company Limited / respondent No.4, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the claimants Nos.1 and 2, and the respondents Nos.3 to 5 are the respondents Nos.1 to 3 before the Tribunal. 15. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: The claimant No.1 was the wife of M.Mani (herein after referred as deceased) and the claimant No.2 was son of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 45 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as barber and contributing the same to his family. The claimants alone are the dependents on his earnings. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 / Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the van. The respondent No.3 is the owner and the respondent No.4 / National Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the lorry. Therefore, the claimants seek compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- payable by all the respondents with joint and several liability. 16. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked as evidence. On behalf of the respondents, copy of insurance policy of the respondent No.4 was marked as Ex.B1. 17. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed in negligently causing the accident and fastened liability on all the respondents. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and his annual contribution to his family was arrived at Rs.36,000/-. Since the deceased was found to be aged about 45 years, by applying multiplier ‘15’, to his annual contribution and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards expenses, Rs.3,60,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. Rs.500/- was 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 awarded towards transportation charges, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.500/- was granted towards damage of clothes, Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium to the claimant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- was granted towards loss of love and affection to the claimant No.2. Thus, in total Rs.3,98,500/- was awarded. Interest was granted @ 9% p.a. payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The liability was fastened on all the respondents with joint and several liability. 18. M.A.C.M.A.No.915 of 2006 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 26.02.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.249 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 19. The appellant is National Insurance Company Limited / respondent No.4, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the claimants Nos.1 and 2, and the respondents No.3 to 5 are the respondents Nos.1 to 3 before the Tribunal. 20. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: The claimant No.1 was mother of P.Hari (herein after referred as deceased) and the claimant No.2 was sister of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 21 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as barber and contributing the same to his family. The claimants alone are the dependents on his earnings. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 / Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the van. The respondent No.3 is the owner and the respondent No.4 / National Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of 10 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 the lorry. Therefore, the claimants seek compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- payable by all the respondents with joint and several liability. 21. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked as evidence. On behalf of the respondents, copy of insurance policy of the respondent No.4 was marked as Ex.B1. 22. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed in negligently causing the accident and fastened liability on all the respondents. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and his annual contribution to his family was arrived at Rs.36,000/-. As the deceased died unmarried in a motor accident, multiplier ‘16’ is taken by considering age of mother of the deceased i.e., 37 years under Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After taking multiplier ‘16’ to annual contribution and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards expenses, Rs.3,84,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. Rs.500/- was awarded towards transportation charges, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.500/- was granted towards damage of clothes, Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of expectation of life. Thus, in total Rs.3,97,500/- was awarded. Interest was granted @ 9% p.a. payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The liability was fastened against all the respondents with joint and several liability. 23. M.A.C.M.A.No.2202 of 2012 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 20.02.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati. 24. The appellant is Oriental Insurance Company Limited / respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 is the claimant, and the 11 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 respondents Nos.2 to 4 are the respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 before the Tribunal. 25. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: The claimant sustained fracture to her right hand and injury to her right toe and other injuries over her body. The claimant was shifted to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati for treatment. The claimant underwent treatment for about six months. The claimant is a typist and earning Rs.6,500/- per month and contributing to her family. Because of the accident she got permanent disability and not able to work, therefore she claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation from all the respondents. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 / Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the van. The respondent No.3 is the owner and the respondent No.4 / National Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the lorry. 26. The claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A8 were marked as evidence. No document was marked on behalf of the respondents. 27. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the petition against the respondents Nos.3 and 4 (relating to the lorry) and made the respondents Nos.1 and 2 (relating to the van) liable for causing the accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,700/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards permanent disability. In total, Rs.34,700/- was awarded to the claimant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition, till the date of deposit into the Court, payable by the respondents Nos.1 and 2. 28. Aggrieved by the liability cast upon and quantum of compensation, the insurance companies preferred all these appeals. 12 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 29. These appeals involve rival contentions of the insurance companies of both the vehicles. As the claim petitions were decided by different Tribunals at different times, there are conflicting decisions with regard to the liability of the drivers of the vehicles. Consequently, the liability of the insurance companies differed amongst the different claims. In M.V.O.P.No.551 of 2000, the liability was apportioned between the driver of the lorry and the van @ 30% and 70% respectively, whereas in M.V.O.P.Nos.247 of 2001, 248 of 2001 and 249 of 2001, the liability was equally fastened against all the respondents Nos.1 to 4 with joint and several liability. The driver of the lorry was totally exonerated and the whole liability for causing the accident was fastened only on the driver of the van in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2001. M.V.O.P.No.551 of 2000 was decided on 22.06.2004, M.V.O.P.Nos.247 of 2001, 248 of 2001 and 249 of 2001 were decided on 26.02.2005. M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2001 was decided on 20.02.2006. Of course, apart from the liability, the appellants questioned the quantum of compensation awarded on different grounds stated above. 30. It is settled law that irrespective of the proceedings on criminal side, the Tribunal has to decide a claim arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by considering the evidence before the Tribunal. As per the allegations in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet, the driver of the van alone was accused. The evidence in F.I.R. and charge sheet is not the gospel truth. The respondents failed to lead any evidence by examining any witness on this aspect. Since there was head on collision, the principle generally applicable is that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed to the cause of the accident. The extent of contribution depends on the facts and circumstances in each case. 31. In M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2001 which is under appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2202 of 2012, basing on the admissions in the oral 13 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 evidence of P.W.1 that the driver of the van alone is responsible to cause the accident and P.W.1 who lodged F.I.R. stating that the driver of the van alone was responsible for the cause of the accident, the Tribunal dismissed the claim against the owner and insurer of the lorry. But, in other cases, divergent opinions were expressed basing on the same kind of evidence. 32. To avoid conflicting decisions, steps must be taken to simultaneously decide the claims arising out of the same accident. This accident is a classic example of divergent views arising in respect of the same accident due to disposal of the petitions by different Tribunals on different dates by different presiding officers. 33. As the matters are very old, it is not apt to remand the matters to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, if required, by taking additional evidence. Therefore, since this Court has an opportunity of passing judgment at the same time in all the appeals, to avoid conflicting views of the liability in respect of the very same accident, it is just and necessary to take a common view with regard to all the contentions raised by these appellants. 34. Merely because, the criminal record is against the driver of the van, in the absence of any evidence led by the respondents, as indicated above, the liability of the driver of the lorry cannot be negatived in view of the evidence led before the Tribunal by the claimants. Of course, it is only in one matter, the claimants and the witnesses stated only against the driver of the van, but, considering all the matters together, in the circumstances indicated above, this Court is of the view that the liability shall be fastened against the drivers of both the vehicles, not with joint and several liability, but with liability at the rate of 70% and 30% against driver of the van and the driver of the lorry respectively. Accordingly, the amount of compensation awarded in each 14 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 case shall be apportioned between the respondents and all the claims are decided. 35. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the contention that adoption of multiplier from the Schedule-II is concerned, it cannot be treated as illegal since it provides guidance in the absence of any other acceptable multiplier. Moreover, the multipliers in the schedule are uniformly adopted by the Tribunals to avoid conflict. Therefore, there is no illegality. Insofar as the other grounds regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, since the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence and quantified the compensation, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation or the rate of interest. 36. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 is disposed of. 37. M.A.C.M.A.Nos.902 of 2006, 903 of 2006 and 915 of 2006 are allowed in part. 38. M.A.C.M.A.No.2202 of 2012 is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, in these appeals, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in these appeals, shall stand closed. ___________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 20.12.2025 NSM / RAR 15 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3288 of 2005 & batch Dt.20.12.2025 247 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3288 of 2005, 902, 903, 915 of 2006 and 2202 of 2012 Dt.20.12.2025 NSM / RAR