APHC010173122023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 149/2023 Between: 1. ATHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 54-15-4B, 1ST FLOOR, GUTTIKONDA ZOOM COMPLEX, NEAR VINAYAK-, THEATER RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK AMINABI, W/O. SULTAN, MUSLIM, 33 YEARS, HOMEMAKER, 2-7-8B, JAMEDARAPET, BAPTLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PREESENTLY RESIDING C/O. FIVE STARS SERVICING STATION, 54-783, 4TH ROAD, AUTONAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. 2. B SURESH, S/O. RAVI, HINDU, 26 YEARS (AS PER CHARGE SHEET), DRIVER CUM OWNER OF VEHICLE, HNO10-99, MUSTABAD VILLAGE, GANNAVARAM, KIRSHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to set aside Decree and Order dated 19.01.2023 passed in M.V.O.P No. 215 of 2017 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 2 VS,J MACMA No.149 of 2023 pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and Order dated 19.01.2023 passed in MVOP No. 215 of 2017 on the the of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.149 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/insurance company, challenging the order and decree dated 19.01.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.215 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the petitioner/claimant, on account of the death of one Shaik Kasim in a motor accident that occurred on 14.10.2016. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: a) On 14.10.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., while the deceased was crossing the road near Bharat Petroleum bunk at that time from Eluru side towards Gannavaram, a motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 DL 0728, driven in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn, dashed against him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Based on the report lodged by one Kasaraneni Kiran Kumar, a case in Crime No.318 of 2016 was registered by Gannavaram Police for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the rider of the offending vehicle. 4 VS,J MACMA No.149 of 2023 b) It is the contention of the petitioner that she is the sister of the deceased. Their parents died during their childhood and the petitioner and her husband were dependent upon the deceased, as they were suffering from ill- health. The deceased was stated to be working in a restaurant and earning Rs.7,500/- per month and was contributing his earnings to the petitioner. Hence, she claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., the rider0cum-owner of the offending vehicle and its insurer. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte. 05. Respondent No.2–Insurance Company filed its counter denying the material averments and contended inter alia that there was violation of policy conditions, as the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to motor vehicle accident occurred on 15.10.2016 at about 08.00 PM at near Bharat Petroleum Bunk, Gannavaram, Krishna District? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for, and if so, from whom, and to what amount? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioner, she examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined one third party as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the 5 VS,J MACMA No.149 of 2023 2nd respondent/insurance company, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 and Ex.X1 were marked. 08. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded as follows: “i) the petition is allowed awarding total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the 1st respondent; ii) The petition against 2nd respondent is dismissed without costs; But, however, the 2nd respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner and to recover the same from 1st respondent basing on this award without filing any separate legal proceedings; iii) The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the total compensation amount along with costs and interest into Court within one month from the date of this order and later, to recover the same from 1st respondent; iv) On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest on the entire compensation amount and costs thereon. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with the interest on the total compensation amount and costs and remaining sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from her share of compensation shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank for a period of two years; v) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. 6 VS,J MACMA No.149 of 2023 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal contending that since the rider of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence, there was a clear violation of policy conditions and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1 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. A perusal of the impugned award discloses that the insurance company examined R.W.2, Senior Assistant from the RTO Office, Vijayawada, and marked Ex.X1, which establishes that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the said evidence, rightly recorded a finding that there was a breach of policy condition. However, the Tribunal, relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Nirmala Kothari vs. United India Insurance Company Limited1, held that even in cases of breach of policy conditions relating to driving licence, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the 1 (2020) 4 SCC 49 7 VS,J MACMA No.149 of 2023 vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal applied the principle of “pay and recover”. This Court finds no infirmity in the said finding. 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimant contended that the deceased was working as a coolie in Royal Restaurant, Gannavaram and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month, as the petitioner 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.4,500/- per month. After adding 25% towards future prospects, in terms of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi 2 , it comes to Rs.5,625/- per month (Rs.4,500/- + 1,125). However, the Tribunal wrongly calculated 25% of future prospects as Rs.1,800/- instead of Rs.1,125/-. As the number of the dependent family members of the deceased is only one i.e., the petitioner, after deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, it comes to Rs.2,812/- per month and accordingly, his annual income was fixed at Rs.33,744/- (Rs.2,812 X 12). Applying the relevant multiplier of „18‟ applicable for the age of the deceased i.e., 24 years, as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3, an amount of Rs.6,07,392/- (Rs.33,744 X 18) was awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, (referred supra), the claimant was awarded Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA No.149 of 2023 and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimant would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,40,392/-. However, since the petitioner restricted her claim to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation, which is just and proper and needs no interference. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the petitioner. 14. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.03.2026 KGR