APHC010079592015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2168/2015 Between: Kandula Seshagiri Rao, Krishna Dist ...APPELLANT AND Dunna Naga Malleswari Krishna Dist 6 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following: 2 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 JUDGMENT: The owner of the offending tractor preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 05.01.2015 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.73 of 2013. 2. Heard arguments of Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: The appellant-Sri Kandula Seshagiri Rao purchased a tractor which has Engine No.305022 and chassis No.38227 on 02.02.2009 from Bharat Auto Enterprises. Smt. D.Naga Rani owns a trailer bearing chasis No.790809. The tractor and trailer 3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 were not yet registered. The tractor was not insured. Sri Kandula Narayana is the son of the appellant-Sri Kandula Seshagiri Rao. On 19.02.2009 the above referred tractor and trailer carried various persons including Sri Dunna Venkateswarlu and one Kotamma. At about 3:00 P.M. the tractor and trailer being driven by the son of the appellant turned turtle and the people who were travelling in the said vehicle fell and two persons died which include Sri Dunna Venkateswarlu. About this accident, Crime No.27 of 2009/Ex.A.1 was registered at Kanchikacherla Police Station for the offences under Sections 304A and 338 I.P.C. as against the driver of the offending vehicle. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid/Ex.A.7. The dead body of Sri Dunna Venkateswarlu was subjected to inquest/Ex.A.2 and autopsy/Ex.A.3. The legal representatives of Sri Dunna Venkateswarlu being wife, children and mother filed M.V.O.P.No.73 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The driver of the offending vehicle was shown as respondent No.1, the owner of the offending tractor was shown as respondent No.2 and the 4 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 owner of the offending trailer attached to the tractor was shown as respondent No.3. The owner of the trailer did not choose to appear and contest. The owner/father and his son who was the driver filed counters denying their liability. They pleaded that it was only at the request of the deceased and others they gave the tractor and trailer for being used and that the deceased and others were gratuitous passengers and that the vehicle was meant only for agricultural purposes but it was used otherwise and therefore they were not liable to compensate them. It was further contended that the owner of the offending tractor paid money to the vendor/Bharat Auto Enterprises for registration charges, life tax and insurance charges. However, the vendor/dealer, out of negligence, did not obtain the insurance policy. The said vendor/dealer is a necessary party. They prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the deceased Venkateswarlu died due to accident occurred on 19.2.2009 at 3:00 P.M. due 5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing chasis No.38227 and 790809? 2) Whether the deceased is aged 45 years and getting Rs.6,000/- per month as on the date of accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum as claimed for towards compensation? If so, from whom? 4) To what relief? 5. Evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 was for the claimants. The driver and owner testified as RW.1 and RW.2. No documentary evidence was produced on their behalf. 6. After considering the entire evidence on record including the investigative outcome of the State Police, the learned Claims Tribunal categorically held that it was out of rash or negligent driving of tractor with trailer by its driver the accident occurred leading to the death of Sri Dunna Venkateswarlu. From the evidence on record, it found the age of the deceased as 45 years. He was stated to be a coolie and according to PW.1 he used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal felt that 6 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 there was no tangible evidence in proof of such income. In such circumstances, it considered the earnings of the deceased notionally as Rs.3,000/- per month. The necessary multiplier was found to be ‘14’. Though there were five legal representatives, the learned Claims Tribunal found that two of them were married daughters of the deceased and therefore they could not be stated to be the dependents. Thus, in its opinion three of the legal representatives of the deceased were found to be the dependents. In such circumstances it deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his possible personal and living expenses. Thus, it arrived at a monthly income of Rs.2,000/- for the deceased and annual income was Rs.24,000/- and on applying multiplier ‘14’ it found Rs.3,36,000/- as compensation to be awarded towards loss of dependency. For the married daughters, it granted Rs.10,000/- each towards love and affection. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.3,56,000/- was found as just compensation. It negatived the contentions of contesting respondents. It held the owner of the tractor, and the owner of the trailer were jointly and severally liable to shoulder the 7 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 responsibility. Accordingly, it passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.3,56,000/- to the petitioners with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Out of the said amount the first petitioner being the wife of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs 1,36,000/- including loss of consortium; the petitioners 2 and 5 are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The amount awarded to the minor 5th petitioner shall be kept in FDR, till she attains majority, and the first petitioner being mother and natural guardian is at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued thereon for the benefit and welfare of the minor fifth petitioner. The petitioners 3 and 4 being married daughters of the deceased, entitled for Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. The fee of the Advocate is fixed at Rs.1,500/-, Petition is allowed accordingly with proportionate costs.” 7. Aggrieved by it, the owner of the offending tractor preferred this appeal. 8. Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, the learned counsel for appellant, fervently contended that Bharat Auto Enterprises is the one from whom this appellant purchased the tractor and he had 8 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 paid the necessary charges for registration as well as insurance policy and the vendor failed to obtain them and therefore, it is a necessary party and the Claims Tribunal failed to consider it. That the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.3,000/- which was on the higher side. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted in C.C.No.110 of 2011 and was acquitted. It is for all these reasons the learned counsel urges to upset the impugned award. 9. As against it, Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants contended that contentions on both sides were properly considered in the light of the evidence adduced before it and the learned Claims Tribunal rightly arrived at factual conclusions and granted the award in accordance with law and no interference is called for in this appeal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The points that fall for consideration in this appeal are: 9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 1. Whether Bharat Auto Enterprises was a necessary party and the award ought not to have been passed in its absence? 2. Whether the impugned award suffers from any errors of fact or law requiring interference? POINT No.1: 11. The evidence on record was assessed by the Claims Tribunal and it remained undisputed that at the material point of time the offending vehicle was not registered with the Regional Transport Authority and no insurance policy was obtained covering the risk of third parties. The vehicle was purchased on 02.02.2009 and the subject matter accident took place on 19.02.2009. Without the valid insurance policy, the owner of the vehicle was not supposed to use it on the road. The fact remains that the owner permitted his son to drive the vehicle from Eturu of Chandarlapadu Mandal to Ketanakonda of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal on the fateful day. According to the appellant, he had paid the necessary charges for registration of the vehicle and 10 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 necessary amounts of money for the purpose of insurance policy to the vendor/Bharat Auto Enterprises. Despite making such a statement he did not adduce any evidence in that regard. He did not choose to request the Claims Tribunal to summon anyone from Bharat Auto Enterprises. If what is stated by the appellant is correct, then it is for him to sue Bharat Auto Enterprises for its failure to obtain registration and insurance policy despite receiving necessary amounts of money in that regard. The presence or absence of Bharat Auto Enterprises has nothing to do with the subject matter accident. Bharat Auto Enterprises, in the event of collecting insurance amount from the owner of the offending tractor, acted as an agent of the owner of the tractor and the failure of obtaining policy was the mistake on part of such agent and the principal/master is responsible for the acts and omissions of its agent. Since the principal/the owner of the offending tractor is a party to the proceedings, non-impleadment of its agent has no legal consequence. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the award suffers from non-impleadment of necessary party is wholly untenable. Hence, the point is answered against the appellant. 11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 POINT No.2: 12. The subject matter accident took place in the year 2009. The deceased Sri Dunna Venkateswarlu was a coolie. These facts were never in dispute before the Claims Tribunal as well as here. A coolie earning Rs.100/- per day is a matter of common knowledge and it was that which convinced the Claims Tribunal to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. There is no tangible evidence to find fault with such observation of the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the Claims Tribunal notionally assessed the income of the deceased which was on higher side is untenable. Hence, the point is answered against the appellant. 13. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The award dated 05.01.2015 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama in M.V.O.P.No.73 of 2013 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 18.03.2025 Ivd 13 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.2168 of 2015 Date: 18.03.2025 Ivd