1 APHC010132962019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 366/2019 Between: 1.TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SHOP NO. 501, 502, 3RD FLOOR, CENTRAL PARK, OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TILAK ROAD, TIRUPATHI- 517501. ...APPELLANT AND 1.GOPU PENCHALAMMA, W/O LATE KHAJA VALLI, AGED 39 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O KAVALAKUNTLA VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2.GOPU MANOHAR BABU, S/O LATE KHAJA VALLI, AGED 13 YEARS, STUDENT,MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN G. PENCHALAMMA, R/O KAVALAKUNTLA VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3.GOPU SUBBAMMA, W/O LATE SUBBA RAYUDU,AGED 61 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O KAVALAKUNTLA VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4.SHAIK BASHA, S/O HUSSAIN PEERA, AGED 36 YEARS, MUSLIM, DRIVER OF ST ANTHONY'S SCHOOL BUS BEARING NO. AP04-TT-2942, R/O D.NO. 14/108, 2 MAHABOOBNAGAR, RAMASAMUDRAM POST, PORUMAMILLA TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 5.ST ANTHONY E M HIGH SCHOOL PORUMAMILLA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CORRESPONDENT C. VIJAYA PRATAP REDDY, OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NO. AP04-TT-2942, R/O REDDY NAGAR, PORUMAMILLA TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Oder and Decree dt 24.12.2018 in M.V.O.P.No. 35 of 2018 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-First Additional District Judge, Kadapa and be pleased to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 grant stay of order and Decree dated 24.12.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.35 of 2018 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - First Addl. District Judge, Kadapa pending the disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: 1.T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.DHANUNJAYA REDDY K 2.RAVULA NAGARJUNA The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal is filed by TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by order dt.24.12.2018 in MVOP No.35 of 2018, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 161 of Motor Vehicles Act r/w. Rules made thereunder claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs on account of death of 1st petitioner’s husband Sri G.Khajavalli in the accident that was occurred on 01.03.2017, in which the offending school bus bearing Registration No.AP04TT 2942 was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that on 01.03.2017, the deceased went to agricultural fields belonging to him on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TS07EE 9587. While, he was returning to home at about 7:30 p.m., the offending school bus driven by the 1st respondent came rash and negligent manner at high speed, without blowing horn and dashed the deceased from behind and dragged him to some distance. As a result of which, the deceased received bleeding injuries to his right leg and other 4 parts of the body. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Porumamilla and later he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and from there he was taken to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment, where the deceased succumbed to injuries on 08.03.2017 at 04:30 am, while he was undergoing treatment. As the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver, the petitioners gave a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.25 of 2017. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their earning member and in those circumstances, the present claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. 5. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle and St. Anthony’s English Medium High School, filed counter affidavit stating that, the offending bus was insured with the 3rd respondent as on the date of accident. It was further averred that since the respondent Nos.1 & 2 have not violated any terms of the Insurance Policy, the 3rd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against them. 5 6. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners have to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. It was further averred that the 1st respondent did not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. It was further case of the 3rd respondent that, the deceased drove the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner, thereby he lost control and fell on the road, thereby he sustained injuries which resulted in death. It was further averred that the compensation claimed was excessive. With the above pleadings, the 3rd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim of the petitioners. 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, they have examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs A1 to A9 on their behalf. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent marked Ex.B1 “copy of the Insurance Policy” and did not examine any witnesses on its behalf. 8. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the Tribunal by impugned order partly allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.16,80,000/- towards compensation under various conventional 6 heads together with future interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.S.Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel representing Sri K.Dhanamjaya Reddy for respondents. 10. Pursed the record. 11. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. In order to prove the same, the 3rd respondent did not examine any witnesses on its behalf. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence, the contention of the respondent No.3 cannot be believed. On the other hand, the petitioners got examined PW-2, the eye-witness to the accident, who categorically deposed that the offending bus came in rush and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from behind. He further deposed that the said bus dragged the deceased to some distance and thereby, he sustained injuries. Apart from the same, the petitioners have also filed copy of FIR in Ex.A1 and copy of charge sheet marked as Ex.A6. 7 12. On perusal of above exhibits, it is evident that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. As already noted supra, the 3rd respondent neither adduced any evidence nor marked any documentary proof to rebut the same. In the absence of any evidence on record on behalf of the respondents, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Hence the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced. 13. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed Exs.A7 and A8 i.e., copies of pattadar pass book and salary certificate respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was getting income of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum as on the date of accident. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has filed pattadar pass books and Ex.A8 salary certificate issued by PW-3, who is the proprietor of Ayyappa Studio and Xerox Centre. PW-3 deposed that he has been running the said Studio and Xerox Centre for the past 12 years and the deceased was working as Assistant. He further deposed that the deceased was paid an amount Rs.7,500/- per month as salary. As the 3rd respondent has not produced any 8 evidence to disprove the same, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. 14. On perusal of Exs.A7 and A8, the petitioners have proved that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. The Tribunal after taking into consideration of the facts of the case on hand and by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”1, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.16,80,000/-, under various conventional heads together with interest @ 9% per annum. 15. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. For the reasons recorded supra, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 22.01.2026 DR 1 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 9 170 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.366 of 2019 Date 22.01.2026 U DR