1 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 APHC010092662022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 91/2022 Between: 1. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ARTS COLLEGE ROAD, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. HOLDING ITS OFFICE AT HYDERABAD REP, BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 ...APPELLANT AND 1. MANGI DAMAYANTHI, W/O. LATE LAXMINARAYANA @ SRINU, AGED 22 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT 1-1-285, KONDI VEEDHI, MOGILIPADU VILLAGE, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MANGI VENU, S/O. LATE LAXMINARAYANA @ SRINU, AGED 2 YEARS, MINOR, MOTHERS PROTECTION, (PETITIONER NO.2 BEING MINOR REP, BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN- MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER- MANGI DAMAYANTHI) 3. MANGI ADILAXMI, W/O. LATE BEEMUDU @ BHIMA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.N0.326, BENDI COLONY, BENDI VILLAGE, VAJRAPU KOTTURU (M), SRIKAKULAM DT. 4. NARTHU DHILLESWARA RAO, , S/O. LATE NARAYANA, AGED 56 YEARS, DRIVER CUM OWNER OF TATA ACE VAN BEARING NO. AP 30 U 8917,KOTTAPUTTUGA VILLAGE, KAVITI MANDAL, 2 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toThe appellants begs to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Hon'ble High Court being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 23-12-2021 passed in MVOP no. 190 / 2018 on the file of Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Srikakulam IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 grant stay the execution of the decree and judgment passed in MVOP No 190 of 2018 dated 23-12-2021 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge Srikakulam Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO KURAPATI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order and decree dated 23.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.190 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,94,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Mangi Laxminarayana @ Srinu, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.04.2016. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) On 08.04.2016, in the morning, the deceased Mangi Laxminarayana started from his village Bendi to go to his sister‟s house at Ponduruputtuga village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 30 AE 4331. After completion of his work, when he reached near Kalika Marrichettu on the B.T. Road from Silagam to NH-16 road at about 11:10 a.m., the 1st respondent drove the Tata Ace goods carriage van bearing No.AP 30 U 8917 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and fled away from the scene. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Community Health Centre, 4 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 Ichapuram, in a 108 Ambulance. The Medical Officer referred him to MKCG Hospital, Berhampur for better treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries at about 3:30 p.m. on the same day. The Station House Officer, Kaviti Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2016 under Section 304-A IPC against the 1st respondent and filed charge sheet in C.C. No.191 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram. b) It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was working as a welder and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. The 1st petitioner was five months pregnant at the time of the accident and the 2nd petitioner was born on 26.08.2016, after the death of the deceased. The father of the deceased died on 21.12.2016. The petitioners, being dependents on the earnings of the deceased, lost their source of livelihood and suffered mental agony. Hence, they filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were set exparte. 05. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the material averments. It was contended that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was further contended that the FIR reveals that it is a self-accident and that the claim petition was filed in collusion with the police to claim compensation. It was also contended that the 5 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 driver did not possess a valid driving licence and that the compensation claimed was excessive. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased/Mangi Laxminarayana alias Srinu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.04.2016 at about 11.10 AM near Kalika Marrichettu on BT road, Silagam to NH 16 road in Srikakulam District? If so whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Ace Goods Carriage van bearing No.AP 30 U 8917 by its driver? 2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation for the death of the deceased/Mangi Laxminarayana alias Srinu, S/o of late Bheemudu @ Bhima Rao? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.B1 to B3 and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked, and the Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as C.W.1. 08. After hearing both parties and upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, is as follows: “In the result, petition is partly allowed by granting compensation of Rs.12,94,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs, ninety four thousand only) with 6 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization with proportionate costs. APPORTIONMENT: Out of Rs.12,94,000/-, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is apportioned to the share of 1st petitioner, an amount of Rs.4,94,000/- is apportioned to the shares of 2nd petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is apportioned to the shares of 3rd petitioner. DISBURSEMENT: On such deposit, 1st and 3rd petitioners are permitted to withdraw half of the amounts apportioned to their respective shares and their remaining amounts shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years and thereafter they are entitled to receive the same. The amount apportioned to the share of the 2nd petitioner shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized Bank till he attains majority and thereafter he is entitled to receive the same. CSTS: Proportionate costs are awarded. TIME FOR DEPOSIT: One month time is granted for deposit. ADVOCATE FEE: Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. LIABILITY: 2nd respondent/insurance company is ordered to deposit the said amount into Tribunal within one month from the date of this order and then recover the same from the respondent No.1 without filing any separate suit. The rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without costs. The petitioners are directed to deposit the deficit court fee if any and on such deposit the Office is directed to issue certified copy of decree to the petitioners.” 7 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously concluded that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. It is contended that the accident was in fact a self-accident with no involvement of any other vehicle. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the contents of the FIR and other material on record clearly indicate that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. It is also contended that the evidence of P.W.3 is unreliable and ought not to have been relied upon by the Tribunal. 11. 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. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. The main contention of the appellant/insurance company is that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that it was a self- accident. 14. On a perusal of the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the claimants got examined P.W.s 1 to 3 and also marked 8 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 Exs.A1 to A5 in support of their case. PW1, being the wife of the deceased, is not an eye-witness to the accident. PW2 i.e., Beena Dilli Rao, though claimed to be an eye-witness, in the cross-examination has categorically deposed that he did not go through the contents of the chief-affidavit at the time of signing the same; that he did not give any report to the police; that he was not examined as a witness in the calendar case before the Magistrate‟s Court, that he was not shown as a witness in the charge sheet; and that he does not know one Ponduru Narayana, who lodged the report with the police, except admitting that he knows the deceased. Hence, his evidence is not reliable. 15. Coming to P.W.3, who is an eye-witness to the accident, he has categorically deposed that on 08.04.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., he started from Ponduruputtuga village to go to Silagam Village and reached Kalika Marri Chettu on the B.T. Road of Silagam at about 11.00 a.m. While he was waiting for an auto, a Tata Ace van bearing No.AP 30 U 8917 came from Sompeta towards Silagam village, and the 1st respondent drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, at about 11.10 a.m., near Kalika Marri Chettu on the B.T. Road leading to N.H.16, dashed against a Glamour motor bike bearing No.AP 30 AE 4331, which was proceeding in the same direction. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and the offending vehicle fled from the scene. He further deposed that he witnessed the accident and shifted the injured to C.H.C., Ichapuram in a 108 ambulance and returned after the relatives of the injured reached the hospital. He further deposed that he was 9 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 examined by the police and was cited as L.W.3 in the charge sheet and that he later came to know that the injured died at Berhampuram Hospital. During his cross-examination, he stated that he knows Ponduru Narayana, the brother-in-law of the deceased, who lodged the report with Kaviti Police Station. He explained that he did not report the matter to the police immediately as he was engaged in shifting the injured to the hospital in 108 ambulance. He further deposed that he informed one Purushotham, owner of a photo studio, who in turn informed Ponduru Narayana Rao about the occurrence of the accident and basing on the telephonic information of Purushotham, Ponduru Narayana Rao has reported to the police. He also stated that, except informing Purushotham, he did not inform anybody else about the accident, that he does not know the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle, and that he saw the deceased after he fell down from the motorcycle from a distance of about 12 to 13 feet. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 clearly establishes that he is an eye-witness to the occurrence, who saw the deceased after he fell down from the motorcycle from a distance of 12 to 13 feet from the Tata Ace vehicle, and who shifted the injured to the hospital in a 108 ambulance and thereafter informed the same to one Purushotham who in turn informed the same to Ponduru Narayana Rao, who reported the matter to the police. 16. Further, on behalf of the respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined. R.W.1 is the Senior Assistant in the RTA Office, Srikakulam and R.W.2 is the 10 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 Deputy Manger, (Legal) of the 2nd respondent company. They are not eye- witnesses to the accident. R.W.3 is the driver-cum-owner of the TaTa Ace Van bearing registration No.AP30 U 8917 and C.W.1, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, was also examined. R.W.3 deposed that he was not driving the vehicle on the date of the accident and that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. he further stated that he did not possess a driving licence and never drove the offending vehicle and that his vehicle was not responsible for the death of the deceased. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that a charge sheet was filed against him and that he attended the Magistrate Court at Ichapuram on several occasions. His evidence is only to the extent that he was not driving the vehicle on the date of the accident, and not that the vehicle was not plied on the road on the date of accident. 17. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company placed reliance on the contents of the FIR which discloses that the deceased himself contributed to the accident, this Court holds that the FIR is only the first information given to the police, and after conducting detailed investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. Considering the evidence of P.W.3 and R.W.3 coupled with Ex.A2/charge sheet, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on 08.04.2016 and that the deceased died in the said accident. No adverse evidence was found in the record to accept the plea that it was a self-accident. The Tribunal further observed that though the 2nd respondent/insurance company attempted to 11 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 establish that it was a self-accident and that the vehicle of the 1st respondent was not involved, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the said contention. Therefore, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners, holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle, which needs no interference. 18. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle submitted that the calendar case ended in acquittal of the 1st respondent before the Magistrate‟s Court. However, this Court is of the view that such acquittal in the criminal case cannot be relied upon for deciding the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act as held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. K.Balasubramanian and others.1 , wherein it was observed as follows: “10. It is a well settled proposition of law that the judgments of the Criminal Courts are neither binding on the Civil Court/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal no relevant in a Civil Case or a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, except for the limited purpose of showing that there was a criminal prosecution which ended in conviction or acquittal. But there is an exception to the general rule. When an accused pleads guilty and is convicted based on his admission, the judgment of the Criminal Court becomes admissible and relevant in Civil proceedings and proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, not because it is a judgment of the Criminal Court, but as a document containing an admission. Of course, admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted therein. But unless and until they are proved to be incorrect or false by the person against whom the admissions are sought to be used as evidence, the same shall be the best piece of evidence.” 1 2007 (2) TN MAC 399 (DB) 12 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 19. From the above decision, it is clear that the acquittal in a criminal case does not mean that the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle/1st respondent was not negligent. Further, such acquittal will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. 20. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants contended that the deceased was working as a Welder and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, as the petitioners have failed to file any proof with regard to his earnings, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day i.e., Rs.9,000/- per month, which is found to be just and reasonable. After considering the number of dependents as three, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased was deducted towards his personal and living expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting his personal expenses, the remaining amount contributed to his family comes to Rs.6,000/- (Rs.9,000 – Rs.3,000). Applying the relevant multiplier „17‟ for the age group the deceased i.e., 28 years, as recorded in Ex.A4/postmortem certificate and Ex.A5/inquest report, and as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.12,24,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 17 X 12). Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi3, the 2 2009 ACJ 1298 3 2017 ACJ 2700 13 VS,J MACMA No.91 of 2022 claimants were entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that, in all, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,94,000/- which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the petitioner. 21. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 10.03.2026 KGR