APHC010207682023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 214/2023 Between: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ...APPELLANT AND 1. SETTI UPPAYYA, S/O.KATANNA, AGED 52 YEARS, HINDU, MALE, OCCUPATION-COOLIE, R/O.DNO.2-2, MERAKA VEEDHI, RAMALAYAM, VELANKA, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL. 2. SETTI PEDA SATHIBABU, S/O.UPPAYYA, AGED 30 YEARS, HINDU, MALE, OCCUPATION NIL, R/O.D.NO.2-2, MERAKA VEEDHI, RAMALAYAM, VELANKA, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL 3. DADI VENKATA RAMANA, SUBBARAO, AGED 24 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO.AP 01 AE 296 WITH TRAILER BEARING REG NO. AP 03 AP 7563, R/O.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, JAGGAMPETA. 4. BALA SOWRI GANTEDI, S/O.APPARAO. AGED 45 YEARS, HINDU, MALE, OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO.AP 01 AE 296 WITH TRAILER BEARING REG NO. AP 03 AP 7563, R/O.D NO.1-86, MARRI VEEDI, YELESWARARM MANDAL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court pleased to set aside the decree and judgment in M V.O.P.No.354 of 2017 on the file of Motor 2 VS,J MACMA No.214 of 2023 Accidents Claims Tribunal, cum- 10th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, Dated 6th day of December, 2022, 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 37 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against the decree and judgment M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,- cum- 10th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, Dated 6th day of December, 2022, 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 6th day of December, 2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,— cum- 10th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, including the 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 to Vacate the interim stay granted on 12-05-2023 in IA No. 2 of 2023 in MACMA No. 214 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Court and permit the Petitioners to withdraw the amount deposited by the Respondent Insurance Company herein and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVA NAGARJUNA SIDHADAPU 2. BHANU PRASAD CHUKKAPALLI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.214 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, on account of the death of the deceased, Setti Nookaratnam, in a motor accident that occurred on 04.05.2016. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that the 1st petitioner is the husband and the 2nd petitioner is the son of the deceased. On 04.05.2016 at about 9:00 a.m., the tractor bearing registration No.AP 01 AE 2968 along with trailer bearing registration No.AP 03 AP 7563, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 05 BL 6237, on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider, near the outskirts of Velanka Village, Kirlampudi Mandal. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. It is contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. 4 VS,J MACMA No.214 of 2023 04. The claimants further contended that the deceased was aged about 50 years, hale and healthy, and was working as an agricultural coolie, earning about Rs.10,000/- per month, and was contributing her entire income towards the family. Due to her sudden death, they suffered loss of dependency and other conventional heads, and hence claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. 05. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte. 06. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the material averments in the petition. It is contended that the age, occupation, and income of the deceased, as stated by the petitioners, are not true and are put to strict proof. It is further denied that respondent No.1 was the driver and respondent No.2 was the owner of the tractor bearing No.AP 01 AE 2968 with trailer bearing No.AP 03 AP 7563. However, it is admitted that the said vehicle was validly insured with respondent No.3 as on the date of the accident. It is also stated that respondent No.1 possessed a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle had valid permit, registration certificate, and fitness certificate at the relevant time. 07. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed a counter denying all material allegations in the claim petition as false and untenable. It disputed the age, occupation, and income of the deceased and put the petitioners to strict proof thereof. It is contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and without basis. The Insurance Company further contended that the tractor bearing No.AP 03 AE 2968 was not insured with it, and only the trailer bearing 5 VS,J MACMA No.214 of 2023 No.AP 03 AP 7563 was covered under the policy. It is also contended that the driver/respondent No.1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a tractor-cum-trailer, as his licence was only for light motor vehicles and motorcycles. Therefore, there is a violation of policy conditions, and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Accordingly, it sought dismissal of the claim petition 08. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased namely Setiti Nookaratnam died due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing Reg No.AP 01 AE 2968 cum Trailer bearing No.AP 03 ap 7563 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 09. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.s1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B.1 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. 10. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “In the result, the petitioner allowed with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit 6 VS,J MACMA No.214 of 2023 of the said amount by the respondents. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount into the Court within one month from the date of this award. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and the 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the balance amount (Rupees two lakhs) shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of two years. the 2nd petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and on such deposit the 2nd petitioner is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.” 11. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company preferred the present appeal contending, inter alia, that there was no negligence on the part of the tractor driver; that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider; that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not made parties; that the tractor was not insured; that the driver did not possess a valid licence; and that the quantum of compensation is excessive. 12. 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. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 14. With regard to Issue No.1, the Tribunal, upon considering the evidence of P.W.1, who was riding the motorcycle, is an eye-witness to the accident, 7 VS,J MACMA No.214 of 2023 and is also the son of the deceased observed that at the time of the accident, both P.W.1 and the deceased were travelling on the motorcycle. P.W.1 deposed as to the manner of the accident, stating that the offending vehicle, driven by respondent No.1, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. The said testimony is corroborated by Ex.A5/charge sheet filed against respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Based on the said evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, resulting in the death of the deceased. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 15. With regard to the contention of insurance company that only the trailer was insured and not the tractor, and therefore it had no obligation to pay compensation, as the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the tractor driver and not the trailer, the Tribunal, upon considering various judgments rendered in similar circumstances, rejected the said contention. The Tribunal held that by insuring the trailer, the insurer had consciously entered into a contract with the insured and undertaken the obligation to discharge the liability arising therefrom and to indemnify the insured, and that avoiding such obligation is neither just nor proper. It was further held that when the trailer is insured, and the Insurance Company has issued the policy with full knowledge that it is intended to be drawn by another motor vehicle, it 8 VS,J MACMA No.214 of 2023 is deemed that the insurer has undertaken to discharge the liability arising out of its use. Since a trailer cannot be used independently without a motor vehicle, the liability of the Insurance Company would arise even if the tractor, which draws the trailer, is not separately insured. The Tribunal, relying on settled legal principles, rightly held that once the trailer is insured, the insurer cannot escape liability. This Court finds that the reasoning of the Tribunal in fastening liability on the insurance company is just and proper. 16. Coming to the quantum of compensation, though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was working as a coolie and earning Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per day, in the absence of any documentary proof with regard to income, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, which is just and reasonable. Following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, and as there are two dependants, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the contribution to the family was taken at Rs.4,000/- per month (Rs.6,000/- – Rs.2,000/-), which comes to Rs.48,000/- per annum (Rs.4,000/- × 12). By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘13’, applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 50 years, as recorded in Exs.A2/Inquest Report and A3/Charge Sheet, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.6,24,000/- (Rs.48,000/- × 13) towards loss of dependency. Further, by adding 25% towards future prospects, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble 1 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA No.214 of 2023 Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi2, the total amount comes to Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.6,24,000/- + Rs.1,56,000/-), which is just and proper. 17. Apart from the said amounts, 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. Thus, the total compensation awarded comes to Rs.8,50,000/-, which is just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive. 18. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 30.03.2026 KGR 2 2017 ACJ 2700