APHC010180662023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 168/2023 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MICRO OFFICE, 1-8 OPPOSITE TO OLD BUS STAND TIRUCHANUR, TIRUPATHI TOWN CHITTOOR DIST ...APPELLANT AND 1. B NANDINI, W/O. LATE B. SRINIVASULU AGED . 29YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD 2. BABY B HIMAJA, D/O. LATE B. SRINIVASULU AGED . 7YEARS OCC. STUDENT 3. MASTER B ROHITH, S/O. LATE B. SRINIVASULU AGED . 6YEARS, OCC. STUDENT R2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REP BY THEIR MOTHER 15T RESPONDENT 4. B GOVINDAMMA, W/O. KUPENDRA AGED. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD 5. B KUPENDRA B KUJENDRA, S/O. KUJENDRA AGED . 59 YEARS OCC. ALL THE 1 TO 5 ARE R/O. 4-104 RAGI MANUPENTA HARIJANWADA, RAGIMANUPENTA POST BANGARUPALYEM (M) CHITTOOR DISTRICT. PIN. 517429 6. P SUDHEER, S/O. P. KRISHNAMA NAIDU AGED. MAJOR, OCC. NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER R/O. H.NO. 3-2 UPPUVANKA(V), H/O. PENTAPALLI, PAKALA(M), CHITTOOR DISTRICT PIN . 517172 2 VS,J MACMA No.168 of 2023 7. M SRIPATHI, S/O. M. LAKSHMAIAH AGED 47 YRS, OCC. DRIVER R/O. 12-107 S V NAGAR, TIRUPATI PIN. 517501 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal and set aside the decree dt. 03-11- 2022 and Award/Order in MVOP No.33 of 2019 passed by the Hon'ble Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 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 pleased to pass an order to condone the delay of 57 days in filing the above MACMA and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to pass an order to stay of all the further proceedings in the MVOP No.33/2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge. Chittoor, Chittoor District including that of withdrawal of an amount if any deposited pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V VEERABHADRA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.168 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the order and decree 03.11.2022passed in M.V.O.P.No.33 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor, wherein the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,39,500/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only) to the petitioners/respondents No.1 to 5 herein, as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the death of one B.Venkatesulu in a motor accident that occurred on 28.07.2017. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows: a) On 27.07.2017, the deceased B.Venkatesulu along with one N.Deva @ N.Devarajulu, went to Suguna Hatcheries for loading chicks into an Eicher Van bearing Registration No.AP-03-TC-7525, and while returning to their village, as there was no bus facility, on the request of 2nd respondent, the deceased seated on the cabin, and the vehicle driven by the 2nd respondent. On 28.07.2017 at about 2.00 a.m., while the vehicle was proceeding on the Pakala – Damalacheruvu road near the Railway bridge towards Tirupati side, the driver drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without noticing speed breakers, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries on his head. Immediately, he 4 VS,J MACMA No.168 of 2023 was shifted to Government Hospital, Pakala and from there he was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, where he was admitted as an inpatient and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 02.08.2017 at about 5.30 a.m., Basing on the information, the Station House Officer, Pakala Police registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2017 under Section 304-A IPC against the 2nd respondent/driver. b) The petitioners contended that the deceased was aged about 29 years, hale and healthy and was doing agriculture works in the landed property standing in his grand-father‟s name and earnings Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. Apart from that, he used to work as a loader in Suguna Hatcheries and earning Rs.500/- per day and contributing the same to the welfare of the petitioners. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners lost the earning member of the family as well as his love and affection and they were solely dependent on his earnings. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3, i.e., the owner and driver and the insurance company of the crime vehicle respectively. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 2 were set exparte. 05. The 3rdrespondent filed its written statement denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition. The 3rd respondent denied the manner of the accident as alleged in the petition and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased in sitting on the cabin of the van without support, as a result 5 VS,J MACMA No.168 of 2023 of which he fell down, and therefore, he himself was responsible for the accident. It was further contended that the case was registered after six days. The 3rd respondent also contended that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and validity of the vehicle documents and that the 2nd respondent was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, thereby violating policy conditions. The 3rd respondent denied the age, avocation, income and dependency and contended that the compensation claimed was excessive, and the petitioner was liable to be dismissed. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/2nd respondent of Eicher Van Bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-7525? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, and if so, to what amount, and from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the 3rdrespondent, no oral evidence was adduced,but Ex.B1/copy of policy was marked. 08. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded as follows: 1. Petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.12,39,500-00. 6 VS,J MACMA No.168 of 2023 2. Petitioners are entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of presentation of the petition i.e., 01.02.2019 to till the date of realization. 3. The rest of the claim of petitioners is hereby dismissed. 4. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay award amount along with interest accrued thereon to the petitioners. 5. The 3rd respondent/insurance company should first satisfy award amount along with interest accrued thereon and costs to the petitioners at first instance and thereafter recover the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., 1st respondent, by filing execution petition before the court without filing a separate suit. 6. Out of total compensation, 1st petitioner (wife) is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,39,500/- with accrued interest there-on and total costs; the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each with accrued interest there-on; the petitioners 4 and 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with accrued interest there-on. 7. On deposit, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the amount of her share of compensation along with accrued interest and costs and her remaining share of compensation amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years and after maturity period the 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest. 8. the petitioners 4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw their respective shares of compensation along with accrued interest. 9. Entire compensation amount of petitioners 2 and 3 is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank till they attain their age of majority and after they attain their age of majority, the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest. 10. Office is directed to prepare decree after payment of court fee by the petitioners 11. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. 12. Time granted for deposit of amount is 30 days from the date of award….” 08. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/insurance company preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal, having held that the 7 VS,J MACMA No.168 of 2023 deceased was a gratuitous passenger, ought not to have fastened liability on the insurer and ought not to have directed “pay and recover”. It is further contended that there was delay in lodging the FIR and the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 11. Though the contention of the appellant is with regard to the delay of six days in lodging the complaint, the Tribunal, while considering the said aspect, relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others1, wherein it was held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground to doubt the case of the claimant, as priority is normally given to providing medical treatment to the injured rather than approaching the police. In the present case, the record discloses that immediately after the accident, the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Pakala, and thereafter to RUIA Hospital, Tirupati, where he underwent treatment and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 02.08.2017. In such circumstances, 1(2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693 8 VS,J MACMA No.168 of 2023 P.W.1 could not lodge the complaint immediately, as priority was given to the treatment of the injured; the accident occurred on 28.07.2017, and the report was lodged on 02.08.2017, and thus, the delay stands satisfactorily explained. Moreover, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to discredit the version of the claimants. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the contention of the appellant with regard to delay in lodging the complaint, and the same is liable to be rejected. 12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was engaged in agricultural work and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, and in addition, he was working as a loader in Suguna Hatcheries, earning Rs.500/- per day. In order to substantiate the same, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined, and they categorically deposed that the deceased was carrying on agricultural operations in the landed property standing in the name of his grandfather and was also working as a loader earning Rs.500/- per day. However, no documentary evidence was filed before the Tribunal to prove the said earnings. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in K. Rajani and others v. M. Satyanarayana Goud and another2, and taking into consideration the prevailing wages in the year 2017, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.250/- per day, which comes to Rs.90,000/- per annum. The same cannot be found fault with. As there are five petitioners, after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the contribution to the family was taken at Rs.67,500/- per annum (Rs.90,000 – 1/4th). Applying the 2 (2015 (1) A.W.R. 5 (AP)) 9 VS,J MACMA No.168 of 2023 multiplier of „17‟, applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 29 years as recorded in Ex.A3 – postmortem certificate and in terms of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3 , the Tribunal awarded Rs.11,47,500/- (Rs.67,500 × 17) towards loss of dependency. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, the claimants were awarded Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. The Tribunal, following the aforesaid settled principles, has rightly awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,39,500/-, which is just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or on the higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal in granting the said compensation to the claimants. 13. So far as the liability to pay compensation is concerned, it is to be noted that Ex.B1/policy certificate discloses that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the appellant/Insurer and that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Though it is contended by the appellant/Insurer that the deceased travelled in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and that the 1st respondent/owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the Tribunal, upon considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, has clearly held that the 2nd respondent/driver permitted the deceased to travel in the offending vehicle after loading the chicks. Thus, the deceased was treated as a 3 2017 ACJ 2700 10 VS,J MACMA No.168 of 2023 gratuitous passenger, which amounts to a violation of the policy conditions. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the petitioners at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner. 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: 24.02.2026 KGR