APHC010071842023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 54/2023 Between: 1. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEAR VINAYAKA THEATRE, ELURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. BAVISETTY VEERA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O LATE TATA RAO, AGED 25 YEARS, 3-76, GANDHAMVARI STREET, TADERU VILLAGE, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BAVISETTY SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O LATE TATA RAO, AGED 23 YEARS, 3-76, GANDHAMVARI STREET, TADERU VILLAGE, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. BAVISETTY RAMANJANEYULU, S/O LATE TATA RAO,AGED 21 YEARS, 3-76, GANDHAMVARI STREET, TADERU VILLAGE, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. NARGNA VENKATA DURGA PRASAD, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED 27 YEARS, DRIVER, R/O. RAMARAJULANKA VILLAGE, MALKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. BORUSU UMA MAHESWARA RAO, S/O. VENKATA BRAHMA NANDAM, HINDU, MALE, OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER, R/O. RAMARAJULANKA VILLAGE, MALKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 VS,J MACMA.No.54 of 2023 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased by the Honourable Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District in MVOP No. 61 OF 2018, dt.27.10.2022, by allowing this appeal with costs throughout and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 in pursuance of the order and decree dt.27.10.2022 passed in MVOP No.61/2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 permit the withdraw deposited amount in M.A.C.M.A.No.54 of 2023 dated 24- 02-2023 in M.V.O.P No.61 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Bhimavaram and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KRISHNANAND VADAKATTU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHAKRADHARA RAJA Y 2. G R SUDHAKAR The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.54 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.10,38,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs thirty eight thousand only) to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, on account of the death of Bavisetti Tatarao. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows: On 17.06.2017, the deceased Bavisetti Tatarao along with his wife Bavisetti Mangatayaru started from their house to attend marriage function of their relatives on their TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 CK 6712 and the deceased was a pillion rider. When they reached underneath Dindi bridge of Dindi village at about 12.15pm, the 1st respondent being the driver of Tractor and Trailor bearing No.AP 37 AQ 4603 and AP 05 TX 5273 proceeded towards Sivakodu drove his vehicle with a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased 4 VS,J MACMA.No.54 of 2023 along with his wife fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries and the wife of the deceased died on the spot. The deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and he was shifted to Guntur Government hospital by 108 ambulance for treatment. While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to injuries on 20.06.2017 at about 10.30 am. The cause of accident is only due to the rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent. Prior to the date of accident, the deceased was eking his livelihood as vegetables vendor and earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners sought compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their written statements separately wherein they denied each and every allegation of the petition and specifically contended that respondent No.1 was not the driver of the offending vehicle and Malkipuram Police registered a false case against respondent No.1 and it was ended in acquittal. The respondent No.2 contended that his tractor and trailor are not the offending vehicles and he is no way concerned about the accident. There is no negligence on part of respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of TVS XL Motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 CK 6712 and he drove the said vehicle rashly and negligently without observing plying vehicles and came into 5 VS,J MACMA.No.54 of 2023 the way of alleged tractor and trailor and applied sudden brakes and he lost control over his TVS XL motorcycle and his rash driving contributed to this alleged accident. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are major sons of deceased and they are doing coolie work having sufficient means of livelihood, and they are not at all dependents of deceased. Therefore the claim of the petitioners towards loss of dependency is liable to be dismissed. Hence, they are not liable to pay the compensation either jointly or severally. Therefore they prayed the court to dismiss the petition with costs. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the 1st respondent drove tractor and trailor bearing No.AP 37 AQ 4603 and AP 05 TX 5273 in a rash or negligent manner at the place and time of accident on 17.06.2017 in Bavisetti Tatarao died? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation from respondents? 3. If so, to how much amount? 4. To what relief?” 6. On behalf of the claimants, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Apart from him, one independent witness was examined as PW2. On behalf of 3rd respondent, their Assistant was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 & B2. The Senior Assistant in Regional Transport Office, Bhimavaram was 6 VS,J MACMA.No.54 of 2023 examined as RW2 and got marked Ex.X1 & X2. The 2nd respondent was examined as RW3 and no documents marked on his behalf. 7. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.10,38,000/-(Rupees Ten lakhs thirty eight thousand only) with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment to the credit of this matter within 30 days from the date of Order. 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.3 preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of Tractor and Trailor did not hold proper and valid driving license at the time of accident and that the compensation and the rate of interest at 9% per annum, awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 7 VS,J MACMA.No.54 of 2023 POINT: 11. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.1, the claimants relied upon the evidence of PW2-eye witness and documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A5. The Tribunal through the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A4 & A5 established that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1st respondent, due to which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and succumbed to injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly articulated the rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle which needs no interference. 12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as the deceased was vegetables vendor and getting monthly income as on the date of accident. No document of proof is filed, hence the Tribunal considered to fix the deceased income notionally at Rs.10,000/- per month under the minimum wages and annual income would be Rs.1,20,000/-(Rs.10,000/- x 12). As the age of the deceased was 52 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal below rightly applied the multiplier as ‘11’ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla 8 VS,J MACMA.No.54 of 2023 Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd 1 . After applying the multiplier ‘11’. By deducting 1/3rd annual income (Rs.1,20,000/- / 3 = Rs.40,000/-) towards personal expenses, the actual annual contribution of the deceased to his family members would be Rs.80,000/- ((Rs.1,20,000/- - Rs.40,000/-) and the future prospectus for self- employed person between age group of 50 to 55 years can be calculated @ 10% on the annual income of the deceased, it would come to Rs.8,000/- (Rs.80,000/- x 10%) when added to annual income it comes to Rs.88,000/-(Rs.80,000/- + Rs.8,000/-). After applying the multiplier ‘11’, it would come to Rs.9,68,000/-(Rs.88,000/- x 11). In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- under the head of consortium. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.10,38,000/- (Rs.9,68,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/-) to the claimants. Thus, no interference is required with the said finding of the Tribunal. 13. In view of the above reasons, this Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award. 14. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA.No.54 of 2023 Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 09.02.2026 PBS