APHC010069402019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 196/2019 Between: 1. GUJAPALLI GOVINDAMMA, W/O G.APPA RAO AGED 49 YEARS, HINDU R/O D.NO.9-10-99, RICKKA BAZAR, NEAR POST OFFICE, KHAMMAM. 2. VANGARA APPANNA BABU, S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED 48 YEARS, HINDU R/O MANDALAVARI COLONY, PURITIPENTA VILLAGE, GAJAPATHI NAGARAM MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. TEKU PARVATHI, W/O T.SATYANARAYANA AGED 38 YEARS, HINDU R/O D.NO.2-245, MADHUPADA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. BUGATHA SRINU, S/O MUTHYALA NAIDU AGED 27 YEARS,HINDU R/O DRIVER OF AUTO BEARING NO.AP 35 X 2895 R/O BANGARAMMA PETA VILLAGE,GAJAPATHINAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. BUGATHA MUTHYALA NAIDU, S/O KANNAYYA AGED 52 YEARS, HINDU OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO.AP 35 X 2895 R/O H.NO.1-50, BANGARAMMA PETA VILLAGE,GAJAPATHINAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2019 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SAPTHAGIRI METTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO 2. GUDI SRINIVASU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2019 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SUJATHA M.A.C.M.A.No.196 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The present civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the order and decree, dated 23.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.577 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. By the said order, the Tribunal has dismissed the said claim petition. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioners/claimants preferred this appeal seeking for compensation. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: a) On 03.09.2016, when one V. Satyavathi was crossing the road at 6-45 p.m., at Chakali Banda Colony near NH-26, 1st petitioner drove auto bearing No.AP35 X 2895 from Bangammapeta Village in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the Satyavathi. As a result, she sustained severe bleeding injuries on left leg, left shoulder and head. Inspite of treatment given to her in Community Health Centre, Gajapathinagaram, Government Hqrs 4 VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2019 Hospital, Vizianagaram and KGH, Visakhapatnam, she succumbed to injuries at 22.30 hours. A case was registered in Cr.No.113/2016 of Gajapathinagaram Police Station for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and subsequently the section of law has been altered to Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the 1st respondent. b) It is further contended that the deceased is aged about 65 years at the time of accident and she was hale and healthy prior to accident and used to earn Rs.200/- per day. 1st petitioner is her married daughter, 2nd petitioner is her son and 3rd petitioner is also married daughter. The 2nd petitioner spent huge amounts for funeral expenses and towards transportation. All the petitioners are depending on earnings of deceased Satyavathi and that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being driver, owner and insurer of crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 05. Respondent No.3/insurer filed counter denying the age, income and manner in which the accident had occurred. The 3rd respondent also did not admit the death of the deceased. It is further contended that the name of the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy is not 5 VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2019 mentioned in the petition, but deliberately it was omitted. The accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. The 1st respondent was not holding a valid or effective driving license at the time of accident. There were no Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and other documents to vehicle bearing No.AP35 X 2895. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and that the petition is liable for dismissal. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver-R1 of Auto bearing No.AP35 X 2895 or due to negligence of the deceased, or both, causing death of deceased Vangara Satyavathi? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and which of the respondents are liable to pay the same? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the claimants, during the course of evidence, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A1 to A6 were exhibited. On behalf of 3rd respondent, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were exhibited. 6 VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2019 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the petition with costs. 09. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioners preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal, seeking for compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal basing on assumptions and presumptions by totally discarding the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners dismissed the petition. PW4 who is eye witness to the accident has categorically deposed before the tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. On the death of the deceased, the appellants are entitled for compensation. The order or the Tribunal is contrary to the well established principles laid down under the M.V.Act for granting just compensation to the poor victims in the accident. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and grant compensation to the appellants. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 7 VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2019 POINT: 14. The tribunal has dismissed the OP filed by the claimants on the sole ground that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW3 and PW4 with regard to the number of witnesses shown in Ex.A5 and Ex.A6. Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 are two charge sheets. In Ex.A5, 18 witnesses were mentioned, but however, the said charge sheet was returned by the Court as no eye witnesses were mentioned, as such, PW7 who is Investigating Officer has filed another charge sheet by adding eye witnesses and showing 21 witnesses in the said charge sheet which is Ex.A6. In both the charge sheets, it was stated that prima facie case has been established as against the accused i.e., driver of auto who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased while crossing the road, resulting in, death of the deceased. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that minor discrepancy in the charge sheet cannot be relied upon and in support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10351/2019), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that; 8 VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2019 “It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver”. 16. In any claim of motor accident cases, the initial burden is upon the claimants to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle. Even in the present case, though the Tribunal held that there is certain discrepancy with regard to examining the eye witnesses, but, however, the admitted fact is that according to Ex.A5 and A6, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP35 X 2895 and a crime was registered against him. The evidence of PW4 though specifically not mentioned about the exact manner in which the accident occurred, he deposed that the accident occurred when the deceased was about to cross the road and he saw the accident. When once it is proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle, since the deceased died in a motor accident, the dependents are entitled to seek compensation under Section 166 of MV Act. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Ramya & Ors vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr [2022 Live Law (SC) 816], wherein it was held that “compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. 9 VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2019 Further, the determination of quantum is a fact-dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious”. 17. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the respondents cannot escape the liability in paying compensation to the claimants. However, as argued by the 3rd respondent, their basic contention is that the claim petitioners are majors who are married and that the deceased is 65 years at the time of accident. Considering the said aspect, since the claimants are majors as on the date of filing of the petition itself, they cannot be treated as dependents on the deceased who is aged about 65 years. In view of the same, there are not entitled for any loss of estate, but they are entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of estate to petitioners 1 to 3. In total, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) from Respondent No.3. 18. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the order and decree, dated 23.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.577 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, is hereby modified by awarding compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) to the appellants/petitioners with proportionate costs 10 VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2019 and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Respondent No.3 is shall deposit the compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the appellants are permitted to withdraw the said amount. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 04.07.2025 ARB