APHC010213232023 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: 188/2023 Between: 1. CHOLA MANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,D.NO.40-1-140, 1ST FLOOR, HUSSAIN STREET, OPPOSITE KALANIKETAN, NEAR CHEENUPATI PETROL BUNK, M.G.ROAD, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PATHAPATI SATYAVANI, W/O.RAMA RAJU, HINDU, FEMALE, 40 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.4-86, MPUP SCHOOL ROAD, PIPPARA, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, TADEPALLIGUDEM JCJC 2. MANTHENA BHARATHI, W/O.NAGARAJU, D/O.RAMA RAJU, HINDU, FEMALE, 24 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.7-139, BANK STREET, PIPPARA, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, TADEPALLIGUDEM JCJC 3. BHUPATHIRAJU ARUNA, W/O.VENKATA SUBBA RAJU, D/O.RAMA RAJU, HINDU, FEMALE, 22 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.3-45, DUVVA, TANUKU MANDAL, TANUKU JCJC. 4. PATHAPATI PHANEENDRA KUMAR, S/O.RAMA RAJU, HINDU, MALE 20 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O.D.NO.4-86, MPUP SCHOOL ROAD, PIPPARA, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, TADEPALLIGUDEM JCJC. 5. VIKRAM SINGH, S/O.DEWAR SINGH, HINDU, MALE,44 YEARS, DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. CG 05 X 9211, R/O.D.NO.26-5/A, NEAR WATER TANK, DHANTANI ROAD, ABHANPUR, RAIPUR DISTRICT, CHATTISGARH STATE, 2 VS,J MACMA No.188 of 2023 6. MOHD AJAZ GOUD, S/O.YUSUF GOUD, MUSLIM, MALE, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.CG 05 X 9211, R/O.FLAT NO.67,TEHI TARA DAKSHIN SUNDRAGANJ, DHAMTARI, CHATTISGARH STATE ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- I Addl. District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 22nd day of March, 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 pleased to condone the delay of 277 days in filing the M A.C.M.A. against the decree and judgment M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- I Addl. District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 22nd day of March, 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 22nd day of March, 2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- I Addl. District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, including the execution proceedings , pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A.,and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.188 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The insurance company has preferred the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 22.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,07,944/- (Rupees Ten lakhs seven thousand nine hundred and forty four only) to the petitioners/claimants, as against the claim of Rs.12,50,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Pathapati Rama Raju, in a motor accident that occurred on 03.05.2016. 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 as follows: a) On 03.05.2016 at 4.45 a.m., the deceased, along with other villagers went to coffee hotel near Poduru Doctor Hospital at Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal. While they were taking a tea, a lorry bearing No.CG 05 X 9211, coming from Attili towards Pippara, on Pippara – Attili main road, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, without following traffic rules and without blowing horn, and in a wrong route, dashed against the deceased and other villagers, dragged them for some distance and turned turtle. As a result of which, the deceased and other villagers sustained grievous injuries all over the body, and the deceased and one Venkanna died on the spot. The injured persons were immediately shifted to 4 VS,J MACMA No.188 of 2023 Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem. A case in Crime No. 55 of 2016 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC of Ganapavaram Polcie Station was registered based on the report given by one Paluri Lakshmi, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the driver and cleaner of the lorry. b) It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 42 years, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing milk business and Rs.60,000/- per annum from agricultural activities. He was the sole breadwinner of the family. Due to his sudden demise, the claimants suffered loss of dependency, love and affection and mental agony. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- from the respondents. 04. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 were remained ex parte. 05. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed a counter denying the accident, involvement of the deceased and also disputing the validity of the driving license, permit, fitness and other documents of the vehicle. It was further contended that the cleaner, namely Devavish Karma, drove the vehicle at the time of the accident without possessing a valid driving licence, and that the owner knowingly allowed him to drive, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also contended that the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 5 VS,J MACMA No.188 of 2023 “1. Whether the pleaded accident, dated 03.05.2016 early morning 04.45 a.m., was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.CG 05 X 9211 (Crime vehicle) driven by the 1st respondent and whether the Pathapati Rama Raju (deceased) died in the said accident? 2. Whether the crime vehicle was owned by the 2nd respondent, and insured by 3rd respondent as on the date of the accident? 3. Whether there was any contribution of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle (lorry) bearing No.CG 05 X 9211 in occurrence of the accident? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of respondents? 5. To what relief? 07. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.W.s.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. 08. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “In the result, petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs in favour of the petitioners against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 by awarding compensation amount of Rs.10,07,944/- (Rupees Ten lakhs seven thousand nine hundred and forty four only) to the petitioners 1 to 4 with interst @ 7.5% per annum with following apportionment from the date of filing of this petition till the date of realization. (a) The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the petitioners No.1 to 4, as awarded and as apportioned. 6 VS,J MACMA No.188 of 2023 (b) The 3rd Respondent being the Insurer is directed to deposit the said compensation amount within one month before this Tribunal from the date of this Order. In the event of failure of deposit, the petitioners Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to get the compensation amount by proceeding in accordance with law. (c) The 1st petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.6,57,944/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty seven thousand nine hundred and forty four only) with accrued interest on the entire compensation amount of Rs.10,07,944/- and total costs thereon, and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on deposit of the compensation amount and the remaining amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. (d) The petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each and they are permitted to withdraw the same on deposit of the compensation amount. (e) The 4th petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) and he is permitted to withdraw the same on deposit of the compensation amount. (f) The rest of the claim is hereby dismissed. (g) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. (h) The decree will be supplied to the petitioners, after verification by Office as to payment of Court Fee and exemption if any, sought at the time of filing of this case and on clearance of Court Fee dues, if any.” 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/insurance company preferred this appeal contending that the cleaner was driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence, that there was violation of policy conditions, and that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the insurer. It is also contended that the income of the deceased was taken on a higher side without any documentary proof. 7 VS,J MACMA No.188 of 2023 10. Heard Gudi Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Mr.S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the claimants. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the cleaner of the lorry was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident without a valid driving licence; however, a perusal of the cross-examination of R.W.2 reveals that Ex.A1–FIR and the inquest report attribute negligence to the driver of the lorry, and there is no mention therein that the cleaner was driving the vehicle. In view of the same, the said contention cannot be accepted. To prove the accident, the claimants relied upon the evidence of P.W.2, an eyewitness, who categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony; her evidence is duly corroborated by Ex.A1–FIR and Ex.B6–charge sheet. Further, the Insurance Company failed to examine any witness to substantiate its plea that the cleaner was driving the vehicle, moreover, the driver, who is the best person to speak about the manner of the accident, was not examined. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the said finding does not warrant interference. 8 VS,J MACMA No.188 of 2023 13. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing milk business and Rs.60,000/- per annum from agriculture work and cultivation of leased lands, they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the actual earnings of the deceased. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal having regard to Ex.B6/charge sheet wherein the occupation of the deceased was recorded as an agriculturist, and following the decisions in Sri Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliances Insurance Company Limited1 and Valasamma v. Binu Jose2 deemed it appropriate to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, which in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and requires no interference. As there are four dependant family members, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and arrived at Rs.5,333/- per month (Rs.8,000 – 1/3rd) towards his contribution to the family. By applying the relevant multiplier of „14‟ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 44 years, as recorded in Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.8,95,944/- (Rs.5,333/- X 12 X 14) towards the loss of dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.44,000/- towards loss of 1 2011 (6) ALT 48 (SC) 2 2014 (2) An.W.R 244 3 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA No.188 of 2023 consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection towards children and mother of the deceased and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,07,944/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The point is answered accordingly. 14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 24.02.2026 KGR