APHC010180282008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the ninth day of October, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited and Jalumuru Byragi and others Counsel for the appellant: 1. Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for the respondents 1. P. Durga Prasad The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the ninth day of October, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3450 of 2008 The New India Assurance Company Limited Jalumuru Byragi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for the respondents: P. Durga Prasad The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Thursday, the ninth day of October, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Miscellaneous Appeal No.3450 of 2008 ...Appellant ...Respondents 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, challenging the award and the decree dated 24.02.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2001 before the Chairman, I Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam. 2. The appellant is the respondent No.3. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 are the claimants and the respondents Nos.4 and 5 are the respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: a. The 1st claimant is the husband of the deceased. The claimants Nos.2 and 3 are the daughter and son of the claimant No.1 and the deceased. b. On 04.08.2000, at about 3.30 p.m., while the deceased, along with her husband and the other labourers working in a private company, were clearing bushes by the side of N.H. No.5, the respondent No.1 drove the tractor-trailer bearing number AP30T 4873 and 4874, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, and dashed the deceased causing grievous injuries, which resulted in her death. On the report of the Village Administrative Officer, Mandasa police registered a case vide Crime No.61 of 2000, under Section 304-A, I.P.C. against the respondent No. 1, and a charge sheet was also laid against him. The deceased was aged about 30 years, and was earning Rs.50 to 60 per day as a labourer. The claimants seek compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. 4. The respondent No.2, who is the owner of the tractor and trailer, filed a counter denying the claim and also the allegation of rash and negligent driving, while asserting that the vehicles were insured with the 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2008 respondent No. 3, and that the respondent No. 1 had a valid driving license. 5. The respondent No. 1 adopted the counter filed by the respondent No. 2, by filing a memo. 6. The respondent No. 3 filed a counter opposing the claim, and further stating that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, and prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and exhibits A1 to A5 (Ex.A.1, certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.61 of 2000 of Mandasa Police Station; Ex.A.2, certified copy of inquest report of the dead body of the deceased Jalumuru Thavitamma in Cr.No.61 of 2000 of Mandasa Police Station; Ex.A.3, certified copy of Post-mortem certificate of the deceased Jalumuru Thavitamma, issued by the Medical Officer Community Health Centre, Baruva; Ex.A.4, certified copy of Motor Accident Report from Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ichapuram, in Cr.No.61 of 2000 of Mandasa Police Station; Ex.A.5, certified copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.61 of 2000 of Mandasa Police Station in C.C.No.628 of 2000 of J.M.F.C., Somapeta) were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 (J.V.S.Ramataram, Senior Assistant, New India Assurance Co., Ltd. Srikakulam) R.W.2 (Vajja Ramarao, owner of vehicle) and R.W.3 (A.S.Prakasarao, Accountant, District Co-operative Central Bank, Palasa Branch, Srikakulam District) were examined and exhibits B1 to B5 (Ex.B.1, Xerox coy of Insurance policy bearing No.3162010301141, issued by New India Assurance Company ltd. Srikakulam, for the period from 04.08.1999 to 03.07.2000; Ex.B.2, Xerox coy of Insurance policy bearing No.3162010301141, issued by New India 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2008 Assurance Company ltd. Srikakulam, for the period from 08.08.2000 to 07.08.2001; Ex.A.3, Xerox copy of true extract of cash book of District Co-operative central bank, at page No.283; Ex.B.4, D.D Book of the District Co-operative central bank ltd.No.M.210/ from 1751 to No.1800 and Ex.B.5, true copy of bill challan counter foil, for Rs.8830/- (Rs.8804/-+Rs.26/-=Rs.8830/-, issued by the Assistant Manager, The Srikakulam District Coperative Central Bank Ltd. No.M.210 Srikakulam, Palasa Branch) were marked. 8. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal found that the deceased died of the injuries in the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driving of the respondent No.1. The Tribunal notionally valued daily wages of the deceased at Rs.40 and after deducting 1/3rd of such income towards her personal expenses, calculated amount of notional contribution to the family at Rs.800 p.m. However, the said amount was further reduced to Rs.500/- with an observation that she might not have earned income everyday in a month. Thus, the loss of dependency was calculated by the Tribunal by multiplying 500 by 12 months and ‘17’ multiplier which is applicable to the deceased aged 30 years as per Ex.A.2 and A.3. Therefore, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.1,02,000/-. 9. Thereafter, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the claimant No.1. The Tribunal declined to award compensation under heads pain, suffering and mental agony and also loss of estate. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,19,000/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit with joint and several liability of the respondents Nos.1 to 3. 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2008 10. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the appeal was preferred by the respondent No.3 contending that the multiplier 17 applied by the Tribunal is high. But, as contribution taken is only Rs.500/- p.m. , the overall amount is reasonable. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to see that as per Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 (in short, ‘the Act,1938’) the date on which the premium received shall be taken into consideration. It is also stated in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal failed to see that in case of loss of business, there should be definite evidence of loss of supervisory capacity, if any. The appellant prayed to reduce the amount of compensation stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on high side. 11. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the policy / exhibit B2 was in force from 08.08.2000, i.e., the date of issue of the policy, and therefore, though premium was paid on 01.08.2000, there was no enforceable contract as on 04.08.2000, i.e., the date of the accident in view of Section 64VB as per which the policy comes into force only from the date of issue of the policy. The main contention of the appellant appears to be that the accident occurred on 04.08.2000, whereas the premium was remitted on 01.08.2000, but the policy was issued w.e.f 08.08.2000. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 / claimants submitted that since premium was paid on 01.08.2000, well in advance before 03.08.2000 the policy comes into force with effect from 04.08.2000 immediately after the expiry of the existing policy on 03.08.2000 and therefore, the Tribunal rightly fastened liability on the insurance company as well and that there is no violation of Section 64 VB of the Act, 1938. He referred to the decision of the Division Bench 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2008 of this High Court in M. Nageswara Rao Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.1, wherein the insurance company cancelled the policy of insurance on the ground of dishonour of cheque given for payment of premium. This decision has no relevance to the present case as the actual dispute of liability in this case is on a different footing. 13. The undisputed fact is that the premium paid for renewal of the existing policy which expires by 03.08.2000 was remitted on 01.08.2000 itself, whereas, the accident occurred on 04.08.2000, however, the policy was issued renewing policy with effect from 08.08.2000. Since payment of premium was received in advance, issue of policy of insurance is only an administrative act. It is not known why the policy was issued with effect from 08.08.2000 instead of at least from 04.08.2000, i.e., the date from which renewal shall be made to give effect to continuation of the earlier policy of insurance, since the amount of premium was received prior to the date of expiry of policy. It is settled law that in matters of welfare legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, interpretation shall be made in favour of the victim as is held by the Supreme Court. 14. Section 64VB of the Act, 1938, reads as under: “64VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance (1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such 1 2002 Supreme (AP) 485 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2008 time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner. (2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer. Explanation.—Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be. (3) Any refund of premium which may become due to an insured on account of the cancellation of a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account of the agent. (4) Where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer, he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays. (5) The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories in insurance policies. 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2008 (6) The Authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer.” 15. A reading of the above provision does not indicate that the insurance company is liable only from the date of issuance of policy of insurance. On the other hand, the explanation to Section 64 VB(2) shows that even when actual payment is not received, in case of postal money order or cheque, the risk can be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or cheque is posted. It indicates that the liability can be taken up from the time the insurer makes payment irrespective of the time at which the payment was actually received by the insurer. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability against the insurer / appellant. 16. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, no part of the amount granted by the Tribunal is on high side. Just as the Tribunal applied the multiplier of “17” for the person aged between 30 to 35 years, the appellant contended that it is on high side. As per the decision in Smt. Sarala Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others2, the relevant multiplier for the persons aged between 30 and 35 is “16”, but as on the date of pronouncement of the order by the Tribunal, the decision in Sarala Verma (supra) is not rendered, and therefore, the multiplier of “17” as shown in the schedule to the M.V. Act was adopted. 2 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2008 17. If the amount payable in case of a claim by the legal representatives of the deceased persons is concerned, even more compensation may be possible in the event the claimants seek enhancement. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the quantum of compensation merely because there is a difference in the amount due to difference in the multiplier adopted. 18. With the difference in the multiplier between “17” and “16”, the difference in quantum of compensation (Rs.6,000/- approximate) being very small and the award was passed by application of the acceptable method by then, this Court does not want to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 09-10-2025 RSD / RAR