1 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. APHC010079222022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 72/2022 Between: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY IT'S DEPUTY MANGER, T.P HUB, GUTTIKONDA ZOOM PLAZA, NEAR VINAYAK THEATRE, RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-10 ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK MEERAVALI, S/O HANUSAHEB, AGED.47YEARS, R/O 3RD LINE, 1-35-123, NAYEEBRAHMINE COLONY, GUNTUR-6. 2. SHAIK SYMOON, W/O MEERAVALI, AGED.42YEARS, R/O RD LINE, 1-35-123, NAYEEBRAHMINE COLONY, GUNTUR-6. DRIVER OF AUTO A.P.16 Y 9834 3. SHAIK MUNNI, D/O MEERAVALI, AGED.47YEARS, R/O 3RD LINE, 1- 35-123, NAYEEBRAHMINE COLONY, GUNTUR-6. 4. M.SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT.37YEARS, R/O 1-151A, RANGAREDDYPALEM, JONNALAGADDA, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO. A.P.04 T 9232 5. SHAIK BAJI, S/O MASTHAN VALI, AGE. 23 YEARS, R/O 2ND LINE, KVP COLONY, GUNTUR. (DRIVER OF MUNICIPAL WATER TANKER TRACTOR BEARING NO. AP 04 T 9232 ) 2 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. 6. KUNCHALA YEDUKONDALU, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 43 YEARS R/O D. NO. 26-38-130, 12TH LANE, A. T. AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR (THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDERS IN I.A. NO. 831/ 2015 DATED 14.08.2015) 7. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUNTUR, REPRESENTED BYIT'S COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR. 8. SHAIK REHMATULLA, S/O HUSSAIN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NEAR MOSQUE, 2ND LANE, MARUTHI NAGAR, GUNTUR. OWNER OF MOPED BEARING NO. A.P.07 AZ 1734 (THE RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDERS IN I.A. NO. 1490/ 2016 DATED 7.09.2017) 9. HARIJANA COOPERATIVE LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY LTD, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO. 9 WAS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDERS IN I.A. NO. 471/ 2017 DATED 19.02.2018) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. The Court made the following: 3 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 72/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the 2nd Respondent – Insurance Company i.e., The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Deputy Manager, T.P Hub, Guttikonda Zoom Plaza, Near Vinayaka Theater, Ring Road, Vijayawada – 10, challenging the Award/Order and Decree dated 26.03.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1112 of 2012 by the Chairman, MACT –cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur, Wherein the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,65,000/- as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellant as 2nd Respondent, Respondents No.1 to 3 as Petitioners, Respondent No.4 as Respondent No.1 and Respondents No.5 to 9 as Respondents 3 to 7. 2. The brief facts of the petition in MVOP No.1112 of 2012 are that – on 28.05.2012 at about 10.30 A.M, the deceased Shaik Azaruddin along with Shaik Mastan Vali was going on his moped bearing No.AP07 AZ 1734 from Syamala Nagar Railway Gate, towards NGGO’s Colony and when they reached 2nd lane, Venkata Ramana Colony, Guntur, the driver of one water tanker Tractor bearing No.AP04 T 9232 while proceeding towards NGGO’s Colony, drove the 4 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took right turn without giving any signal, due to which, the front back tyres of the tractor ran over the shoulder of the pillion rider, due to which, both rider of moped and pillion rider received external and internal injuries, they were shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, after first-aid,t hey were shifted to Sai Bhaskar Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment. During the course of treatment, the deceased Azaruddin died in the hospital. A Case in Crime No.214 of 2012 for the offences punishable under sections 304A and 338 of IPC was registered in Nagarampalem Police station against driver of the Tractor. ii. The deceased Azaruddin was aged about 24 years at the time of accident, he was hale and healthy, working in Sri Sai Spices and Agro Products, Guntur, earning Rs.7,000/- per month. 1st petitioner is father, 2nd petitioner is mother and 3rd petitioner is unmarried sister of deceased, who are dependants on the earnings of the deceased. Due to untimely death of deceased, all the petitioners lost their future dependency. ii 1st Respondent is the owner of the vehicle, 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company. iii. As per orders in I.A.No.831 of 2015 dated 14.08.2015, I.A.No.1490/2016 dated 07.09.2017 and I.A.No.471 of 2017 dated 19.02.2018 Respondents No.3 to 7were brought on record. 5 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 3. Respondents No.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 remained ex-parte. 4. 2nd Respondent filed Written Statement and Additional written statement praying the Tribunal to dismiss the petition, while denying the averments made in the petition and submitted that the accident was the result of collision of two vehicles i.e., the tanker tractor bearing No. AP04 T 9232 and the moped bearing No. AP07 AZ 1734. Said moped was driven by the deceased. Both the participants of the accident should bear the loss or liability. The petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. 2nd respondent disputed the involvement of offending vehicle. As the deceased himself contributed for the accident, as he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, was an unskilled person and dashed against the offending vehicle at its back, there is no negligence or rashness on the part of driver of crime vehicle in driving the said vehicle. 2nd respondent disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased. He disputed about possessing of valid and effective driving license by the driver of the crime vehicle and also that the vehicle has no valid permit. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and the age of the mother of deceased should be taken into consideration while fixing compensation and interest should be awarded as per RBI guidelines. As 1st respondent violated the 6 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. terms and conditions of the insurance police, 2nd respondent may be exonerated from indemnifying 1st respondent. 5. 5th Respondent – Guntur Municipal Corporation filed written statement and additional written statement praying the Tribunal to dismiss the petition, while denying the averments in the petition specifically. It submitted that every year Guntur Municipal Corporation used to call for tenders from prospective contractors for supply of water through tankers to various places in Guntur Municipal Corporation limits. The successful bidder used to supply water through tankers by engaging his own workers through his own tankers and it gives amount for each trip of the tanker at the rate fixed in the tender to the contractor. As per agreement between the Contractor and Guntur Municipal Corporation, the contractor alone is liable. There is no data about the water supplied on 28.05.2012 near railway gate, Mahatma Gandhi College Road, Guntur and the contractor not informed about the alleged accident on 28.05.2015. At the time of accident, the owner of water tanker tractor viz., M.Sambasiva Rao/R.1 was in contract with one Harijan Co-operative Labour Contract Society Limited, Narasaraopet (R.7) and said society entered into contract with Guntur Municipal Corporation which is this 5th respondent, hence, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The accident must have been caused by 1st respondent on his personal use and as per the terms of agreement, the contractee will bear all the charges and the society has 7 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. consented to bear its compensation. Said tractor not supplied water on behalf of Gunturu Municipal Corporation and the said society not informed about the accident to the Municipal Authorities, as per the measurement book maintained by the Guntur Municipal Corporation the vehicle was not put to use on 28.05.2012, hence, this 5th respondent is not liable and it is 1st respondent, Harijan Cooperative Labour Contract Society Limited, Narasaraopet (7th respondent) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2nd Respondent)are liable to pay compensation. The age of the mother of the deceased should take into consideration while fixing compensation. 6. Basing on the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed. 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of water tanker tractor bearing No.AP04 T 9232 and caused the death of Azaruddin on 28.05.2014 at about 10.30 AM? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of Petitioners, 1st petitioner got examined as P.W.1. To prove the employment and income of deceased, employer of deceased by name Shaik Rahamtulla got examined as P.W.3. The pillion rider who was travelling along with the deceased on his moped on the date 8 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. of accident and received injuries got examined as P.W.3 and also got marked Ex.A.1 - certified copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.214 of 2017 of Nagarampalem Police Station, Ex.A.2 – certified copy of inquest report of deceased, Ex.A.3 – certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.287 of 2012, Ex.A.4 – certified copy of postmortem report of deceased, and Ex.A.5 – certified copy of motor vehicle inspection report. On behalf of contesting 2nd respondent its Legal Department Assistant got examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1 – attested copy of insurance policy, Ex.B.2 – copy of letter addressed by 2nd respondent to 1st respondent, Ex.B3 – returned registered cover of Ex.B.2, and Ex.B.4 – certified copy of deposition of P.W.3 – Rahamtulla in Criminal case. The Junior Assistant of R.T.A., Guntur got examined as R.W.2 and got marked Ex.X.1 – authorization given to R.W.2. One Shaik Adam Shafi, Assistant Engineer of 5th respondent Municipal Corporation got examined as R.W.3 and got marked Ex.B.5 – attested copy of contract registration certificate, Ex.B.6 – work order dated 03.03.2012, Ex.B.7 – agreement dated 13.03.2012 entered by 5th respondent with 7th respondent, Ex.B.8 – measurement Book for the period commencing from 13.03.2012 to 15.12.2012. 8. Upon hearing both sides, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,65,000/- as compensation against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- of the claimants, along with 9 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. interest at 6.5% p.a with proportionate costs, directing 2nd respondent to deposit the entire compensation amount within 30 days from the date of order, with proportionate costs, together with interest from the date of petition till the date of realization and then recover it from Respondents No.1 and 3 and exonerated Respondents 4 to 7. 9. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds –the Court below has adopted erroneous approach to the matter without considering the documentary and oral evidence in proper perspective. The Court below ought to have considered Ex.A.3 – charge sheet that the driver of crime vehicle caused death of the deceased due to his rash and negligent driving without having driving license; as per Ex.A.5 – M.V.I report the crime vehicle was not having any fitness certificate or permit. Ex.B.1 policy covers only under a permit. The Court below ought to have considered that Ex.B.1 policy does not cover, if the vehicle used for hire or reward, hence ought to have exonerated the insurance company from liability, in view of violation of conditions of policy and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive as the claimants did not prove the loss of income as alleged by them and prayed to set aside the Award and Decree dated 26.03.2021 in MVOP No.1112 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, MACT -cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur, by allowing this Appeal. 10. Heard both sides and perused the material in record. 10 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the 1st claimant, who is the father of the deceased, examined himself as P.W.1, who deposed with regard to the nature of the accident as stated in the claim petition. Hence, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 – certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.214 of 2017 of Nagarampalem Police Station, Ex.P.3 - certified copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No.287 of 2012, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3, resulting the death of the deceased, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3 resulting the death of the deceased. 13. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company has preferred present appeal on the ground that the driver of Tanker Tractor was not having valid driving license and the Tanker Tractor was used for hire, in those circumstances, the policy does not cover the third-party risk, hence, it shall be exonerated from the liability. Its further contention is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 14. On perusal of the entire evidence on record and Award passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur,the Tribunal by 11 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sardari and others Vs. Sushil Kumar and others” rightly held that though there is breach of conditions of contract, the Court while fastening the liability on the owner and driver of the vehicle, directed the Insurance Company – 2nd Respondent to pay the compensation amount to the Claimants and then recover it from the owner – 1st Respondent and driver – 3rd respondent, of the Tanker Tractor. 15. Though it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month and in support of this contention also got examined P.W.2, but in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/- per month. As the age of the deceased is 24 years as on the date of the accident, he is entitled for an additional amount of 40% of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in "National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi"1, as such the monthly income of the deceased would come to (3500 +40% i.e., 1400=) Rs.4900/-. Accordingly, annual income would come to (4900 x12=) Rs.58,800/- .As the deceased was bachelor, half of his income has to be deducted towards his personal living expenses. After deducting ½ of the amount, the annual income of the deceased would come to (58,800- 1/2 i.e.,29,400 =) Rs.29,400/-. After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. “18” for the age group of 24 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport 12018 ACJ 2782 12 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. Corporation" 2 , the loss of dependency would come to (29,400 x 18) Rs.5,29,000/-. 16. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.5,65,000/- to the claimants as compensation for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. 17. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.5,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, for the death of the deceased, was reasonable and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 31.01.2026. 22009 ACJ 1298 13 MACMA No. 72 / 2022 VS,J. 187 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 72/2022 DATED 31.01.2026 KS