1 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. APHC010210372023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 198/2023 Between: 1. MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,, REP BY IT'S AUTHORISED SIGNETORY AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE SITUATED AT 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY NO.134/3 PLOT NO.16, TEACHERS COLONY, GURUNANAK ROAD, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT- 520 008 ...APPELLANT AND 1. BADHEPUDI RAM BABU, S/O LAKSHRLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. BODHEPUDI RAMA, W/O RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS (BOTH OF THEM ARE RESIDENTS OF VEGURU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT-524316) 3. BADDEPUDI SIVAIAH, S/O DESAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, DRIVER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO. AP.26 TL- 6098 AND TRAILER BEARING NO. AP 39 T- 8509, R/O VEGURU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT-524316 4. DEVARAM RAMANA REDDY, S/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY,OWNER OF THE TRACTOR, R/O LEGUNTAPADU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT-524137 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO KAMARAJUGADDA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 198/2023 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellant/3rd respondent Insurance company – MAGMA HDI General Insurance Company Limited, Challenging the Order and Decree dated 29.08.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2020 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- Principal District Judge, Nellore, in which an amount of Rs.7,89,000/- was awarded as compensation against the claim of Rs.11,00,000/- of the claimants. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the arties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tibunal i.e., appellant herein as 3rd respondent and Respondents No.1 and 2 herein as Petitioners/claimants and Respondent No.3 and 4 as Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The Petitioners being parents of the deceased – Badhepudi Syam filed this petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short M.V Act) claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-, together with interest and costs, for his death in a tractor accident. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition are that - at the time of accident, deceased – Badhepudi Syam was aged about 19 years, he studied 3 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. Degree course in Chandra Reddy Degree College and he used to give tuitions to 1st Class to 8th Class students, earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and contributing the same to his family members. Petitioners, being parents of the deceased, are dependents on the earnings of the deceased and deceased died unmarried. On 27.10.2019 at about 12.00 noon deceased went to Sand quarry, situated at Mudivarthi village to give lunch carriage to his cousin namely Sivaiah, who was working as driver to the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 26 TL 6098 and AP 39 T 8509 respectively. At about 1.00 p.m., the deceased handed over the lunch carrier to his cousin, who was sitting on driver's seat and he stood on the right side of tractor and trailer. After loaded the sand, the driver of the tractor started the tractor, but unfortunately the tractor and trailer turned turtle on its right side, due to which the deceased was stuck-up in the tractor and trailer, sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head, died on the spot. Petitioners spent Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.50,000/ towards funeral expenses. Therefore, Respondent No.1 being the driver of the tractor and trailer, Respondent No.2 being owner and Respondent No.3 being Insurance Company, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the Petitioners. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 have remained ex-parte. 5. Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the petition averments and further contended that the person who drove the vehicle has no 4 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. relation in force as on the date of accident. The said accident was occurred due to the gross negligence of the deceased who traveled in the tractor and trailer as gratuitous passenger as there is no seating capacity and violated the policy terms and though police registered Crime under Section 304-A of IPC, there is no cause of action and by managing the police filed charge sheet against offending vehicle for wrongful gain. As such Respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the liability of Respondent No.2. As per Registration Certificate, permit and policy the seating capacity is only one that is for driver. Tractor and trailer meant for transporting goods and at the material time of accident, the said vehicle was carrying passenger/deceased and there is no coverage under policy covering unauthorized passengers and there is specific condition in the policy which excluded the use of insured vehicle for carriage of any passenger. Respondent No.3 seeks protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of MV Act. Respondent No.2 violated Section 134(c) of M.V. Act and concerned police failed to follow the mandatory provision under Section 158(6) of M.V. Act. Respondent No.2 willfully and knowingly handed over the possession of the vehicle to the driver, who had no valid driving license and thereby violated the policy conditions and M.V Act conditions. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive. The claimants have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. There shall be no future prospects, since the deceased was not earning member and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal. 1) Whether the deceased namely Badhepudi Syam died in the accident occurred on 27.10.2019, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver (R1) of the tractor and trailer bearing Registration No.AP 26 TL 6098 and AP 39 T 8509 respectively or due to gross negligence of deceased himself or with both? 2) Whether claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what Amount, and against whom? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of inquiry, on behalf of claim petitioners, 1st petitioner - Badhepudi Ram Babu got examined as P.W.1, one Adhuru Dayakar got examined as P.W.2, and one Konda Venkaiah examined as P.W.3 and got marked Ex.A1 - Attested copy of FIR; Ex.A2 - Attested copy of charge sheet; Ex.A3 - Attested copy of PM report; Ex.A4 - Attested copy of Inquest report; Ex.A5 - Attested copy of MVI Report; Ex.A6 - SSC certificate; Ex.A7 - Study and conduct certificates - two in number. On behalf of Respondent No.3 one Abdul Raheem got examined as R.W.1, one Mohammad Madani got examined as R.W.2 and one S.A.Bhaskar 6 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. Babu, S.I of Police got examined as R.W.3 and got marked Ex.B1: Attested copy of Policy;Ex.X1: Authorization; Ex.X2: “B”. Register extract of Tractor bearing No.AP 26 TL 6098; Ex .X3 –“B” Register extract of Trailer bearing No.AP 39 T 8509; Ex.X.4: Permit details of trailer; Ex.X.5: Permit copy of Trailer; Ex.B.6 – section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3; Ex.X7: section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2. 8. Upon hearing learned Counsel for Petitioners and counsel for Respondent No.3, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,89,000/- as compensation together with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization and with proportionate costs, directing Respondents No.1 to 3 to deposit compensation amount jointly and severally, after such deposit, Respondent No.3 is entitled to recover the same from Respondent No.2. 9. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the 3rd respondent insurance company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP26 TL 6098 and AP39 T 8509 alleged to have been involved in the accident, which is a goods carriage vehicle, there is no seating capacity to the said vehicle, it is breach of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed there-under and also breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, hence, 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The tribunal erred in fixing the 7 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. income off the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month, without any proof of income and the deceased was a student and not working anywhere, so the compensation of Rs.7,89,000/- awarded is very exorbitant and excessive out of all portions and the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation, interest and costs. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the Orders dated 29.08.2022 in MVOP No.30 of 2020 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- Principal District Judge, Nellore. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as respondents. 11. Now the point for determination is:- Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 12. Point: On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the 1st claimant who is father of the deceased himself got examined as P.W.1 and in his chief examination affidavit he reiterated about the manner of accident as stated in the claim petition. Eyewitnesses to the accident got examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and they deposed that the deceased handed over the lunch carry to his Cousin who was seating on the driver’s seat and the deceased standing on the right side of the Tractor and Trailer, the driver started the tractor, but unfortunately, the Tractor and Trailer turned turtle on its right side, due to which, the deceased was hand-up in the tractor and trailer, sustained severe injuries on his head and died on the spot. Hence, relying upon the 8 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. evidence of P.W.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A.1 – attested copy of F.I.R., and Ex.A.2 – attested copy of charge sheet, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3, resulting death of the deceased, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3, resulting death of the deceased and accordingly answered issue No.1, which needs o interference. 13. The Counsel for Respondent No.3 argued that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger on Tractor thereby violated the terms and conditions of M.V Act and Rules there under and also policy rules, as the tractor has only one seating capacity and that too, to the driver alone and through the evidence of R.W.3 who is Sub-Inspector of Police, respondent have established that Respondent No.2 – owner of the Tractor has violated the terms and conditions by permitting the deceased to travel in the goods vehicle and held that since, Respondent No.3 established that Respondents No.1 and 2 permitted the deceased to travel in goods vehicle, the liability of Respondent No.3 is limited to the extent of depositing the compensation amount jointly and severally along with Respondents No.1 and 2 and on such deposit, it is entitled to recover the same from Respondent No.2. However, only mistake in the Order and Decree it is mentioned that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the 9 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. compensation of Rs.7,89,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, with proportionate costs. 14. On perusal of the award, it can be observed that admittedly the case of the claimants is that on 27.10.2019 at about 12.00 noon the deceased went to sand quarry situated at Mudivarthi village to give lunch carriage to his cousin – Sivaiah, who was driver to the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP26 TS 6098 and AP39 T 8509 respectively. At about 1.00 PM he handed over the lunch carry to his Cousin who was seating on the driver’s seat and the deceased standing on the right side of the Tractor and Trailer, the driver started the Tractor but unfortunately the Tractor and Trailer turned turtle on its right side, due to which, the deceased was hang-up in the tractor and trailer and as a result, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot. 15. In support of their claim, the claimants got examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 but, in spite of the same, the Tribunal by relying upon the evidence of R.W.3 – Sub-Inspector of Police, who categorically deposed that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger on Tractor and Trailer and thereby violated the rules of permit as there is only one seating capacity, that too, to the driver in a Tractor, held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Admittedly, that is not the case of the claimants. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was not travelling in the said tractor and trailer, 10 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. but he was standing beside the Tractor and Trailer which is supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are eyewitnesses to the said accident. In such a case, the ground raised by the insurance company that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger on the tractor and that there is no liability to Respondent No.3 to pay the compensation amount, cannot be admitted. 16. With regard to the quantum of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, on perusal of the Order it is observed that the Tribunal by relying on a judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 516 in TathaSreevani and Others Vs. D.Vijaya Kumar and others wherein the ratio laid down in Sarla Varma’s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) considered, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs7,000/- per month as the deceased was aged 18 years at the time of his death in the accident. For the age 18 years, the appropriate multiplier “18” is applied. As the deceased was bachelor, half of the income is deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. That being so (Rs.7,000 x 12 = Rs.84,000 – ½ =) Rs.42,000/- is the annual income of the deceased. Thus, a sum of (Rs.42,000 x 18 =) Rs.7,56,000/- is awarded towards loss of dependency of the petitioners and Rs.16,500/- was awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, in total Rs.7,89,000/- was awarded as compensation, which in the opinion of this Court is well reasoned and needs no interference by this court. 11 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. 17. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 23.02.2026. 12 MACMA NO. 198 / 2023 VS,J. 229 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 198/2023 DATED 23.02.2026 KS