APHC010180722023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: 1. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI,REGIONAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE AT DATE HOUSE,2ND FLOOR, N.S.C.BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI 1. T S RAJESWARI/RAJESWARAMMA SIVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.3/451,KARNALA STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. S SATHISH, S/O.LATE T.K. SIVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DEPENDANT, D.NO TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT RESPONDENT 2 IS LR OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER COURT PORDER DATE. 24.07.2023 IN IA.NO.3/2023. 3. T K GUNASEKHAR, S/O.T.KRISHNAPPA DEVAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESID STREET,SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. A SREENIVASULU, S/O.A.SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,DRIVER, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 5 MUTHYALAMMA GUDI STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 160 OF CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI,REGIONAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE AT DATE HOUSE,2ND FLOOR, N.S.C.BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 001, TAMILNADU. ...APPELLANT AND T S RAJESWARI/RAJESWARAMMA (DIED), W/O.LATE T.K. SIVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.3/451,KARNALA STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. S SATHISH, S/O.LATE T.K. SIVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DEPENDANT, D.NO.3/451,KARNALA STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT RESPONDENT 2 IS LR OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER COURT PORDER DATE. 24.07.2023 IN IA.NO.3/2023. T K GUNASEKHAR, S/O.T.KRISHNAPPA DEVAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 3/463, KARNALA STREET,SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. A SREENIVASULU, S/O.A.SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,DRIVER, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 5 MUTHYALAMMA GUDI STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND , CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 160 OF 2023 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI,REGIONAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE AT DATE HOUSE,2ND FLOOR, ...APPELLANT , W/O.LATE T.K. SIVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.3/451,KARNALA STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND S SATHISH, S/O.LATE T.K. SIVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, .3/451,KARNALA STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT RESPONDENT 2 IS LR OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER COURT PORDER T K GUNASEKHAR, S/O.T.KRISHNAPPA DEVAR, HINDU, AGED ENT OF DOOR NO. 3/463, KARNALA STREET,SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR A SREENIVASULU, S/O.A.SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,DRIVER, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 5-112(A), MUTHYALAMMA GUDI STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND , CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 (THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS HEREIN ARE OWNER AND DRIVER, WHO ARE SHOWN AS 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN ORIGINAL CLAIM APPLICATION WERE REMAINED EXPARTE IN LOWER COURT) AND NOT NECESSARY PARTIES. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.238 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Ill Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dated 20th day of December, 2021,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 to condone the delay of 227 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.238 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dated the 20th day of December, 2021and 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment dated the 20m day of December, 2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.238 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, including execution proceedings, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A., and pass IA NO: 3 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 please to bring the 2nd respondent on record as the legal heir of the 1st respondent in the MACMA No. 160 of 2023 and pass IA NO: 4 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 to 3 vacate order dated 21-04-2023 passed in IA.No. 2 of 2022 in MACMA.No.160 of 2023 and dismiss the appeal and pass IA NO: 5 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 to permit the petitioner to Withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the 1st respondent appellant as per the order in IA No. 2 of 2023 in passed in MACMA No. 160 of 2023 order dt. 21-04-2023 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MARELLA RADHA 2. The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 160 OF 2023 JUDGMENT:- The Appellant/ Respondent No.2 Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree, dated 20.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.238 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.19,25,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased S. Venkatesh in a motor accident that occurred on 29.11.2007. 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 Petitioner No.1 is mother and Petitioner No.2 is the brother of the deceased S.Venkatesh. On 29.11.2007 at 11.30 p.m the deceased S. Venkatesh was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. TN 20 M 5559 and the Respondent No.3 was the driver of said car, who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the opposite coming unidentified lorry. As a result, the deceased S.Venkatesh sustained injuries and died on the spot. A case in Crime No. 62 of 2007 was registered by Police, B.N.Kandriga Police Station. The deceased was getting monthly 5 salary of Rs. 20,000/- as authorized GCC distributor for marketing of Girijan Co-operative products at Srikalahasti apart from other business. 4. The Respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte. 5. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.2 filed Counter denying all material averments made in the claim petition and inter alia contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The driver of the Tata Sumo has no valid driving license at the time of accident. The Tata sumo has no valid permit to ply on the alleged route of the accident and did not possess any fitness certificate. Thus, the Respondent No.1 had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot claim any compensation from the Respondent No.2. 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 deceased S. Venkatesh died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle TATA SUMO bearing Regn. No. TN 20 M-5559? 2. Whether the 1st respondent violated terms and conditions of insurance policy? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, from respondents as claimed in the petition? 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joindr of necessary parties? 5. To what relief?” 6 7. On behalf of the Petitioners/Claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A22 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked. None examined on behalf of the respondents. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and respondents No.1 to 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant/ Respondent No.2 preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased without any valid documentary proof and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 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? 7 POINT: 12. On perusal of Award, it can be observed that the Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PW-4, who is an eye witness to the accident, who categorically deposed that on 29.11.2007 at about 11.30 p.m while he was driving the double bullock cart and when he reached Katur Village of B.N.Kandriga Mandal, the driver of TATA sumo drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the opposite coming lorry. Resulting, the inmate of the TATA sumo by name Venkatesh sustained injuries and died on the spot. Coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 i.e certified copies of FIR, Charge Sheet, wherein the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation in respect of subject accident and filed a case against the driver of the TATA sumo, the Tribunal, having considered the matter in entirety, came to conclusion that the claimants could prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the TATA Sumo. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the Respondents, contra to the evidence adduced by the claimants, the finding given by the Tribunal holds good. As such, interference is unwarranted. 13. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants contended that the deceased was a MBA student, and working with RS Documents, Bangalore as data programmer and data cleaning and also doing coconut and photo lamination business and getting Rs.40,000/- per month. In support, the claimants filed documents under Ex.A5 to A22 and also relied on evidence of PWs 2 and 3. The Tribunal taking in to consideration the 8 evidence of PW-2, who issued Ex.A18 i.e Salary Certificate of the deceased, the income of the deceased considered as Rs. 13,000/- per month, which is just and proper. 14. As the deceased annual income was assessed as Rs. 1,56,000/- (Rs. 13,000/- x 12), 40% of his income i.e., Rs.62,400/- was added towards future prospects, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, thereby his annual loss of income was calculated as Rs.1,09,200/-. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of his income would be deducted towards his personal expenditure. Applying the relevant multiplier of ‘17’ applicable for the age of the deceased i.e., 26 years and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 , the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of earnings to be Rs.18,56,400/-. Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, (referred supra) the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, totalling to Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.19,26,400/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the claimants. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 9 15. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 03.02.2026 KK