1 APHC010161652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 142/2022 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MOTOR T.P. SERVICE HUB, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ...APPELLANT AND 1. BIDDIKA GEETHA, W/O., CHINNA RAO LATE, INDIAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HOME- MAKER,BODDUGADIGUDA VILLAGE, KURUPAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. BIDDIKA SURAYYA, S/O., PEDA BABU, INDIAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,BODDUGADIGUDA VILLAGE, KURUPAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. BIDDIKA MANGIDI, W/O., SURAYYA, INDIAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,BODDUGADIGUDA VILLAGE, KURUPAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. BIDDIKA BADARINADH, S/O., CHINNA RAO LATE INDIAN, AGED ABOUT 02 YEARS, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL 2 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 GUARDIAN, 1ST RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT, MRS. BIDDIKA GEETHA, 5. SIVA PRASAD PADI, S/O., GOVINDA PADI, INDIAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO.AP35 W 6176, MODEMIDIAL I U VILLAGE, KURUPAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomay be pleased to allow the Appeal and set aside the Award and Decree dated 23rd Day of December,2021 passed in MVOP No.43 of 2018 by the Honourable Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,Parvathipuram of Vizianagaram District and to pass such 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 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. UPENDRA RAO MANUKONDA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 23.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.43 of 2018on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram District, whereunder and whereby, the Tribunal granted compensation o0f Rs.9,88,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of one BiddikaChinnarao, deceased herein, in a motor accident that occurred on 30.07.2016 at Dandusuraguda Junction. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows: The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the parents and the 4th petitioner is the minor son of the deceased B.Chinnarao, Respondent No.1 is owner-cum-driver of the offending auto. Respondent No.2 is the insurer. 4 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 On 30.07.2016,around 10 A.M., the deceased and his village friends started to Mondekhal Village in an auto bearing No.AP 35 W 6176 to catch a train at Amudalavalasa Railway Station. On the very same day, they reached Ponduru Village to meet the Agent Anata Rao, Who engages them in Coolie work in Ongole. The deceased demanded Rs.7,000/- p.m., as salary but the agent refused his demand and the deceased also refused to go to Ongole due to low salary. Meanwhile, one Ananta Rao offered lunch to all the seven (7) members including auto driver at Ponduru Village but the deceased Chinnarao refused to take lunch. After lunch Anantarao requested the auto driver to drop the remaining members to Amudalavalasa Railway Station to catch the train. The auto driver accepted the same and brought them to Amudalavalasa Railway Station. The deceased also went to Amudalavalasa Railway Station along with other members and he was returned in the same auto to his village Mondenkhal since the auto driver belongs to the same village. Further contended that they reached Amudalavalasa Railway Station around 4.P.M., and the remaining members got down the auto except the deceased Chinnarao and he returned to his village on the same day and the auto reached Veeraghattam village, one VijayKumar 5 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 of Voosakonda village boarded the auto and their auto reached Voosakonda Village, the said Vijaykumar got down from the auto reached Voosakonda Village, the said Vijay Kumar got down from the auto and the deceased Chinnarao alone along with the driver proceeded on the auto and the auto reached Mondenkhal Village around 21 hours, the deceased Chinnarao was in unconscious stage, next day morning i..e., on 31.07.2016 around 6A.M., it was found Chinnarao died on the same spot and the same position which he kept in the previous night with injuries on his body. The 1st petitioner lodged a report before the police and the same was registered as a Case in Cr.No.20 of 2016 of Neelakantapuram P.S under Section 174 Cr.P.C the dead body was shifted to Area Hospital, Parvathipuram for conducting postmortem and the dead body was handed over to the petitioners for funeral obsequies. The S.H.O summoned and interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver confessed his guilt that the deceased died due to his rash and negligent driving. The petitioners contended that the deceased was an agricultural labourer and used to earn Rs.350/- per day. The petitioners further contended that due to the sudden demise of the deceased, they had lost their bread winner. Therefore, the 6 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 petitioners sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.2/Insurer filed a written statement denying the manner in which the accident occurred as well as the age and income of the deceased prior to the accident. The contention of respondent No.2 is that the deceased did not die due to involvement of any motor vehicle accident. After registration of the FIR, the petitioners and well wishers of the deceased, in collusion in the auto driver and also two eye witnesses, cooked a false story. Basing on the statement, FIR was altered to Section 304-A IPC only with an intention to claim compensation from the Insurance Company. As pleaded in the counter, as per the charge sheet, some 5 persons including the deceased went to Amudalavalasa Railway Station and met an agent to go to Ongole, and differences arose between them and the deceased returned home. The police did not examine the agent and simply basing on the eye witnesses, registered a case under Section 304 A IPC. The deceased died because he was in a drunken stage and upon his negligence, fell down from the offending vehicle, as such, the claimants cannot take advantage of the 7 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 same and claim compensation from the insurance company. The auto was not having permit to ply the vehicle within the radius of 60 kms and there was no Fitness Certificate to the offending vehicle and also valid license to drive the auto as on the date of the accident. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the accident occurred resulting in death of the deceased, is due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP 35 W 6176 by its driver i.e., R1? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and for whom? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, PWA-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked. Ex.B1 was marked by consent. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against the respondents with proportionate costs by granting Rs.9,88,000/- as compensation, directing respondent 8 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 No.2 to pay it to thepetitioners within a period of two months along with interest at 6% p.a., in view of the tow laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of UphaarTrazedy 1 from the date of filing of the petition over the compensation granted above till the actual date of amount of compensation awarded, the 1" petitioner 50% of deposit. Out of the total amount of compensation awarded, the 1st petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,94,000/- out of which, 50% of the amount to be distributed in favour of the 1st claimant and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in the Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years in favour of the 1 petitioner. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are equally entitled to the remaining sum of Rs. 4,94,000/- and out of the claim of shares given to petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, 50% be distributed in favour of claimant Nos.2 & 3 and the rest of the amount shall be deposited in the Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years in favour of petitioner Nos.2 &3. In respect of the 4thpetitioner, the amount awarded to him shall be deposited in Nationalized Bank till he attains majority. 1 2011 (4) SCC 481 9 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 9. Aggrieved by the said award, respondent No.2/insurer preferred this appeal contending that there was no negligence on part of the offending auto but there is sole negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in granting the compensation of Rs.9,88,000/- to respondent Nos.1 to 4 as the evidence adduced is not sufficient to arrive at conclusion for granting the said amount. The Tribunal ought to have held that the alteration of the Section of Law from Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code to Section 304-A of IPC is highly motivated. The Tribunal erroneously observed that the alteration is based on the Confession of the Driver of the Auto on 24.11.2016 instead of the Statement said to have been given by him on the said date on his summoning to the Police Station by the SHO. The Tribunal ought to have held that the alteration of Section ‘4’ months long after the alleged commission of offence, is fatal to the narration of the respondents herein. The Tribunal ought to have held that the non- possession of the Certificate of Fitness by respondent No.5 herein (respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P relieves the appellant from any liability. The Tribunal ought to have held that the plying of the crime vehicle beyond the radius of more than 90 Kms by 10 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 respondent No.5 herein from the place of his residence is completely contrary to the Terms and Conditions of the Policy 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT:- 12. Petitioner No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 and narrated with regard to the nature of accident. In support of her case, she got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. She further got examined P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the accident. P.W.2 categorically deposed that he was proceeding on a motor cycle along with his villager viz., T.Kranthi towards Dandusuraguda village and he found the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner on the gravel road in he further noticed one passenger proceeding on the auto fell down from the auto and sustained head injury. Thereafter, he helped the auto driver for shifting the injured in the auto. During the course of cross- examination, P.W.2 categorically deposed that on 14.03.2019 he 11 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 witnessed one person fell from the running auto from its back side. Apart from the same, R.W.2 who is working as S.I. of Police, categorically stated that on his local enquiry he came to know that P.W.2 is an eyewitness. This fact substantially corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. Considering the same, coupled with Ex.A.1 – copy of F.I.R. dated 31.07.2016, Ex.A.2 – copy of F.I.R. dated 24.11.2016, Ex.A.3 – copy of charge sheet, which was filed by the police after due investigation as against the driver of the auto, the Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a specific ground alleging that the police initially registered a case under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., later altered to Section 304-A of I.P.C. vide Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, which in fact was basing on the statement given by the driver of the auto and contended that the said statement was recorded by the police at their instance in order to help the claimants, as such the Court cannot rely upon Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. However, on perusal of the Award, it can be observed that in support of their case, claimants examined P.W.2, who is an eye- witnesses to the accident, apart from the same, S.I. of Police also 12 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 got examined himself as R.W.2, who categorically stated that P.W.2 is an eyewitness to the accident. Though, initially F.I.R. was registered under Section 174 of C.P.C., later basing on the statement given by respondent No.1, F.I.R. was altered to 304-A of I.P.C., which in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be a statement given by respondent No.1 on the pressurize of police in order to help the claimants as no driver would come forward to give a statement that he was responsible to the said accident. As the evidence of R.W.2 substantially corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eyewitness to the said accident, the Tribunal held that there is no hindrance to accept the testimony of R.W.2. Accordingly, answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants, which in the opinion of this Court is well considered and needs no interference. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month which comes to Rs.72,000/- p.a., After deducting 1/4th of the amount towards personal expenses(Rs.72,000-Rs.18,000) the income was fixed at Rs.54,000/- as the age of deceased is 28 years, the appropriate multiplier for the age of 26 to 30 years is ‘17’ as per the decision 13 VS,J MAMCA No.142 of 2022 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. On applying the multiplier of ‘17’, the net income of deceased is Rs.9,18,000/- (54,000x17). Further, the Tribunal rightly granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses in view of the Constitution Bench dictum in National Insurance Co. Vs. Pranay Sethi3. The Tribunal, by considering the evidence on record, rightly granted the compensation of Rs.9,88,000/- to the claimants which is just and reasonable. The Tribunal, as aforementioned rightly apportion the said amount to the claimants. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the claimant. 15. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 27.01.2026 LSP 2 2009 ACJ 1298 3 2017 ACJ 2700