1 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. APHC010145922022 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: 138/2022 Between: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR, SREE GOPAL AUTO STORES, MARUTHI NAGAR, OPP- RTC BUS STAND, KADAPA CITY. HOLDING ITS OFFICE AT HYDERABAD REP, BY ITS MANAGER. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK ASHRAF ALI SHAIK ASHRAFF, S/O. SHAIK JAFFAR VALLI, @ SHAIK JAFFAR ALI, COOL DRINK SHOP, AGED 32 YEARS, D.NO.2/139, NEELAKANTA RAO PETA VILLAGE AND POST, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.(HAVING DIED HIS LRS) 2. SHAIK NOORJAHAN, W/O. LATE SHAIK ASHRAF ALL @ SHAIK ASHRAFF, AGED 24 YEARS, MUSLIM, HOUSE WIFE. 3. SHAIK ASIYA, D/O. LATE SHAIK ASHRAF ALL @ SHAIK ASHRAFF, AGED 3 YEARS, MINOR. 4. SHAIK ASIF, S/O. LATE SHAIK ASHRAF ALI @ SHAIK ASHRAFF, AGED 2 YEARS, MINOR. PETITIONERS 3 AND 4 ARE BEING MINORS REP, BY THEIR MOTHER AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN 2ND PETITIONER- MOTHER. ALL ARE R/O. D.NO.2/139, NEELAKANTA RAO PETA VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. 5. A RANGAREDDY, S/O.A. RARNI REDDY, HINDU, OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILOR, GANGANERU RACHAPALLI, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. KUNCHAPU KUMAR, S/O. K. VENKATESU, AGED 28 YEARS, DRIVER OF TRACTOR, GANGANERU VADDEPALLI, H W RACHAPALLI, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J KRISHNA PRANEETH 2. The Court made the following: 3 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 138/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the 3rdRespondent – Insurance Company i.e., Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Legal Manager, 2nd Floor, Sree Gopal Auto Stores, Maruthi Nagar, Opposite RTC Bus Stand, Kadapa City, Holding its Office at Hyderabad, represented by its Manager, challenging the Order and Decree dated 10.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.133 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) – cum- V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. 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 herein as 3rd Respondent, Respondents No.1 to 4 herein as Petitioners-Claimants and Respondents 4 and 5 herein as Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The petitioners/claimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 475 of the A.P Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 r/w 54 of 1994, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by the deceased 1st petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.10.2016, together with interest and costs. 4 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. 3. The brief averments of the claim petition are that - the 1st Petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 32 years and doing business in cool drink shop and Mobile and Electric shop, getting income of Rs.20,000/- per month prior to the accident and contributing the same to his family maintenance. i. On 22.10.2016 the 1st petitioner left his village on his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.AP04 AY 6039 at about 7.30 p.m.,. to go to his sister – Ghousia’s village at Rayavaram village of T.Sundupalli Mandal.When the 1st petitioner reached bricks factory near Edigapalli village, T.SundupalliMandal on T.Sundupalli - Rayachoty main road, the driver of the tractor bearing No.APO4 W 4113 loaded with Paddy crop, came from T.Sundupalli side in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and dashed against the 1st petitioner's motorcycle, due to which the 1st petitioner fell down from the motorcycle and sustained bleeding injuries over his head and left side of shoulder and admitted in the Government Hospital, Rayachoty. ii. On receipt of hospital intimation and statement of 1st petitioner, T.Sundupalli Police registered a case in Cr.No.162/2016 against the 1strespondent’s vehicle driver i.e., 2nd Respondent. iii. The 1st petitioner was shifted from Govt. Hospital, Rayachoty, to Rama Devi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi for better treatment and he has taken treatment for 20 days as inpatient, for which, he lost his income and good health 5 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. and suffered both mentally and physically. The fracture injuries were not cured and the 1st petitioner suffered with unbearable pain and his condition become panic though he took further treatment in the hospital by incurring huge expenditure, he did not recover due to accident and in continuation of treatment, the 1st petitioner died during the pendency of this MVOP. Hence, Petitioners 2 to 4 were brought on record as Legal heirs and representatives of deceased 1st petitioner. 2nd petitioner has no knowledge to inform about the death of 1st petitioner to T.Sundupalli Police, hence postmortem examination and inquest not conducted over the dead body of deceased. Due to death of 1st petitioner, the petitioners 2 to 4 who are wife and minor children thrown into total darkness and 2nd petitioner did not recover from mental agony. iv. The above accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 being the driver of respondent No.1 and that the 1st respondent’s offending vehicle i.e. tractor and trailer insured with the 3rd respondent and the insurance policy was also in force as on the date of accident. Hence, respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 have remained exparte. 5. The 3rd respondent – insurance company filed written-statement and opposed the claim of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner must prove 6 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. his age, income and manner in which the accident occurred by way of documentary evidence like F.I.R., wound certificate and charge sheet and his expenditure towards medical treatment. 1st respondent did not comply the provisions of Sec.134(c) of Motor Vehicle Act, and hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner No.1 who is rider of the motorcycle bearing No AP04 AY 6039 was not having valid and effective driving license and due to lack of experience, rode the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner, in night time and dashed against the offending tractor which was driven by 2nd respondent, on the extreme left side of the road and that this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. He further contended that the compensation claimed under different heads of special and general damages is unjust and is not tenable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition, with costs, against this respondent. 6. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial - 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor and trailer bearing No. AP04 W 4113 and AP04 W 4115 near H.B. Petrol bunk on T.Sundupalli to Rayachoty main road, and that resulted in causing injuries to the claimant No.1 on 23.10.2016? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 7 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. 7. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner No.2 got examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Ex.A.1 - attested copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.162 of 2016 of T.Sundupalli Police station, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of wound certificate of 1st petitioner, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.4 – photocopy of discharge summary issued by Sree Rama Devi Hospital, Tirupati, Ex.A.5 – Pharmacy receipt dated 15.11.2016 worth of Rs.1,256/- , Ex.A.6 – cash receipts – 2, worth of Rs.1,310 + Rs.1,310/- issued by Narayana Medical College, Nellore., Ex.A.8 – cash receipt worth Rs.17,513/- and bill details issued by Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre, Chennai, Ex.A.9 – Death certificate of 1st petitioner issued by Panchayat Secretary, Neelakantarao Peta, Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. 8. On behalf of the contesting respondent No.3, its Legal Officer got examined as RW.1, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Rayachoty examined as R.W.2, and got marked Ex.B.1 – attested copy of insurance policy, Ex.B.2 – authorization copy issued by Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kadapa, Ex.B.3 – Registration Certificate of A.Ranga Reddy i.e., owner of the Tractor bearing No. AP04 W 4113 and trailer No. AP04 W 4115, Ex.B.4 – Permit extract in the name of A.Ranga Reddy for the Tractor. 9. Upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim 8 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. petition and awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation together with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, directing 3rd Respondent Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners within 30 days from the date of order, failing which, the petitioners are entitled for interest at 9% per annum on awarded amount till realization. 10. 10. Being aggrieved by the said order and decreetal order, the 3rd Respondent - insurance company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that - the compensation of Rs.2,68,800/- awarded under the head of damages towards future income, considering disability at 20% taking into consideration of notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month and the assumption of the tribunal in considering disability at 20% to a fracture injury, without any medical evidence and disability certificate by a competent authority is against law. The Tribunal ought to have not granted compensation towards disability as the injured was died subsequent to accident due to the other reason as heart attack and not due to accidental injuries, in such case there was no pain and suffering to the deceased and award of compensation under the head of disability is against the law. The Tribunal failed to see and appreciate the documents under Exhibits B.2 to B.3 properly wherein it was proved that the insured vehicle was moving on the road without any permit and violation of permit is a breach of policy conditions and in such case the insurer has no 9 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. liability to indemnify the claim. The rate of interest at 7.5% p.a awarded by the Tribunal is against the guidelines of Reserve bank of India and Apex Court judgments. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned decree and order/judgment passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, dated 10.12.2021 in MVOPNo.133 of 2017 and allow this appeal, with costs. 11. Heard both sides and perused the record. 12. Now the point for determination is:- Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT: On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the 2ndclaimant, who is the wife of the deceased, got examined herself as P.W.1 who deposed as stated in the claim petition. Hence, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 - Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.162 of 2016 of T.Sundupalli Police Station, Ex.A.3 – Attested copy of the charge sheet, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.2, resulting the injuries to the deceased, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.2 resulting the injuries to the deceased. 14. As per Ex.A.2 – wound certificate, petitioner No.1 sustained grievous injury i.e., an abrasion injury over forehead, for which he visited hospital several 10 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. times and he has incurred expenditure vide Exs.A.6 and Ex.A.8 medical bills. In the absence of any evidence to prove disability, the Tribunal considered the disability as 20% only. As per guide lines in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation"1 case, fixed the notional income of the 1st petitioner as Rs.7,000/- per month. As the 1st petitioner was aged about 32 years, applying appropriate multiplier “16”, awarded Rs.2,68,800/- (Rs.7,000 x 12 = Rs.84,000 x 16 (multiplier) x 20 / 100 (disability) = Rs.2,68,800) towards future income, medical expenses of Rs.21,429/- and transportation charges of Rs.10,000/-; in total Rs.3,00,229/- but the Tribunal restricted the compensation to Rs.3,00,000/- and awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. In the above facts and circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal is neither illegal nor arbitrary. This court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents 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. 12009 ACJ 1298 11 MACMA No. 138 / 2022 VS,J. 195 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 398/2022 DATED 31.01.2026 KS