APHC010416922019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 38/2020 Between: 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 7 ROADS, KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT NOW REPTD. BY G.B. KALYAN KUMAR, S/O KAMALAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, MANAGER, SUIT CLAIMS HUB, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, III FLOOR, DATTA SAI VEMURI TOWERS, VETERINARY HOSPITAL ROAD, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SKAIK SIDDAVARAM BASHIRUN, W/O MAHABOOB BASHA @ SIDDAVARAM MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO16-141, BESTA VEEDHI, PORUMAMILLA TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK MAHABOOB SHAREEF, S/O MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, MECHANIC, RESIDING AT D.NO16-141, BESTA VEEDHI, PORUMAMILLA TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK RESHMA, D/O MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, UNEMPLOYEE, PHYSICALLY DISABLED, RESIDING AT D.NO16-141, BESTA VEEDHI, PORUMAMILLA TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2 4. SHAIK MAHAMMED RAFI, S/O MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, COOLIE TAX COLLECTION, RESIDING AT D.NO16-141, BESTA VEEDHI, PORUMAMILLA TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. KATTA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O VENKAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN BUT MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP-27-W-5796, RESIDING AT D.NO.5/282/A, KOTCHERLA, EPURU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPETA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. VELPULA ADAMU, S/O GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, LORRY DRIVER, RESIDING AT D.NO.2-97, AGNIGUNDALA, IPURU, EPURU, NARASARAOPETA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto set-aside the Order and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No. 446 of 2018, dated 14.06.2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa and may be pleased to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone the delay of 63 days in filing this MACMA in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To stay of all further proceedings including execution of the Award M.V.O.P.No.446/2018, dated 14.06.2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 3 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the stay granted in I.A.No. 2 of 2020 in MACMA No. 38 of 2020 dated 28.01.2020 and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NAGUMANTRI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SAMBASIVA RAO 2. D KODANDARAMI REDDY 4 The Court made the following judgment: The New India Assurance Company Limited filed the present appeal aggrieved by order dated 14.06.2019 in MVOP.No.446 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. 2. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants/petitioners filed application under Section 166 and 166(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, on account of death of Shaik Siddavaram Mahaboob Basha (herein after referred to as, the deceased) in the accident that was occurred on 07.06.2018, in which the offending lorry bearing registration No.AP27-W-5796 was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was participating in various tenders floated by the Gram Panchayat and eking out his livelihood as contractor. It is further case of the petitioners that, while the deceased was going on cycle to collect taxes, he was hit from behind by the offending lorry, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. As a result, the deceased fell down, and the wheels of the offending lorry ran over his head, and he died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.228 of 2018, under Section 304-A IPC was registered against the 5 3rd respondent driver. In view of the demise of the deceased, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing the above claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is further case of the petitioners that, as on the date of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and used to participate in many auctions and was a successful bidder in several contracts that was floated by the Gram Panchayat. It was further contended that, the deceased was earning Rs.3,60,000/- per annum and in view of his demise, the 1st petitioner/wife of the deceased and other petitioners lost their source of income. The respondent Nos.1 & 3 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle) filed a counter affidavit stating that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. They further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company, and therefore, if any compensation was to be paid, the same must be indemnified by the 2nd respondent insurance company. 5. A separate counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent insurance company stating that, the petitioners have registered crime against the 3rd respondent in order to make the 2nd respondent liable to pay compensation. It was further contended that the 3rd respondent had no valid driving license at the time of the accident and the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive. With the above pleadings the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. In order to prove the 6 case of the petitioners, they have examined PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. 6. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. Upon considering the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal by order under challenge, awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioners, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. Heard counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the respondent Nos.5 & 6. 8. Perused the record. 9. The only ground on which the present appeal is filed is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the claimants are not entitled to receive the same. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the claimants have not placed anything on record to show that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent would submit that the deceased was a contractor who had been a successful bidder in several contracts floated by the Gram Panchayat for seven years prior to the date of the accident. He would contend that, in order to 7 prove the income of the deceased, the petitioners had also filed documents evidencing that the deceased had awarded contracts. Apart from the same, he has also filed bank statements pertaining to account No.91092706113 issued by APB Bank and account No.33358818877 issued by State Bank of India, Porumamilla. Further, the petitioners have filed the original auction account and receipts paid to the Gram Panchayat to substantiate the deceased’s occupation. All these documents were marked as Exs.A5 to A9. A perusal of these documents clearly show that the deceased was executing contracts and contributed his income to the family. From the above, it is evident that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. As already noted supra, the respondents have not placed any material on record to disprove the evidence before the Tribunal, and in the absence of any such material, the case of the appellant/insurance company cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected. 10. Though, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that, as on the date of the accident, the driver had no valid driving license, the same cannot be accepted inasmuch as the petitioners have filed copy of the driving license issued in favor of 3rd respondent and the same was marked as Ex.A13. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle had no license. 8 11. Further, a perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that, the Tribunal having considered the facts of the case has awarded just compensation under various conventional heads. Though the counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation is excessive, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 13. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which is meager. He would further submit that, this Court is consistently granting interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, particularly in the cases that arise under beneficial legislation. After considering the submissions, this Court finds merit in the contention of the counsel for the claimants and accordingly the interest component is enhanced from 6% to 7.5% per annum. 14. It is needless to mention that, the 2nd respondent is directed to pay the compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% to the petitioners from the date of petition till the date of realization within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.01.04.2026 DSB 10 94 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.38 of 2020 Date 01.04.2026 U DSB