APHC010248152022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 234/2022 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM ...APPELLANT AND 1. ALLADA PADMA P1, W/O LATE PRASAD, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, 2. ALLADA DANUSH P2, S/O LATE PRASAD, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3. ALLADA MANASA P3, D/O LATE PRASAD HINDU, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, 1ST PETITIONER 4. ALLADA SANYASI SANYASI RAO P4, S/O LATE BANGARI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 5. ALLADA MALLESH P5, S/O SANYASI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF GADABAVALASA VILLAGE, DATTIRAJERU 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 41-1/14-593, TARAKA NAGAR. RANIGARI THOTA, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT 6. SAMPATHI SATYANARAYANA R1, S/O BABU RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF CONTAINER LORRY BEARING NO. AP16TG 8393 R/O DOOR NO. 8-140, MAIN ROAD, PENTAPALLI VILLAGE, RAMPAYERRAMPALEM POST, GOKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 7. YALAMANCHILI RATNA KUMAR R2, S/O PURNACHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OWNER OF CONTAINER LORRY BEARING NO. AP16TG 8393 R/O DOOR NO. 29-25-22, VEMURIVARI VEEDHI, SURYAPETA, VIJAYAWADA URBAN, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 24-1-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 9/2020 on the file of the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal cum -1Addl. District Judge at Vizianagaram and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 STAY the operation of order and decree dated 24-1-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 9/2020 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Addl. District Judge, Vizianagaram and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. YAGNA NARAYANA CHEBRALU 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR 2. The Court made the following: 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 24.01.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the claimants on account of the death of one Allada Prasad in a motor accident, that occurred on 13.07.2019. 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: Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants No.2 & 3 are the minor children, 4th claimant is the father, and 5th claimant is the brother of the deceased Allada Prasad. On 13.07.2019 at about 8-00 am., the deceased was returning on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 CW 6441 from Rayagada, after completion his business of selling mobile phones and accessories during the Radha yatra at Rayagada, and was proceeding towards his village. When he reached Shikaruganji Road Junction, a container lorry bearing No.AP 16 TG 8393, proceeding towards 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 Ramabhadrapuram, was driven by the 1st respondent/driver at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing the horn and without following traffic rules, and dashed against the motorcycle, due to which, the deceased fell on the road, sustained severe bleeding injuries, and died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to the Community Health Centre, Gajapathinagaram, where an autopsy was conducted over the dead body, and thereafter the body was handed over to the claimants for performing the funeral obsequies and final rites. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver. A case was registered against the 1st respondent in Crime No. 58 of 2019 under Section 304-A of the IPC. The deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by running a mobile phone business. Due to his sudden demise in the road accident, the claimants lost their breadwinner. Therefore, they have claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from Respondent Nos.1 to 3, namely the driver, owner of the offending vehicle, and its insurer. 4. While respondent Nos.1 & 2/driver and owner of the crime vehicle are forfeited their right in filing counters, Respondent No.3/Insurer filed a written statement opposing the claim petition, 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 mainly on the ground that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of the deceased and that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver in any manner whatsoever. The petitioners failed to furnish the policy particulars of the offending vehicle and that the said vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance policy. Hence, Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The 1st respondent was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that the 2nd respondent/owner failed to maintain the offending vehicle in proper condition, which contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The 1st respondent did not comply with the provisions of Section 64(v)(b) of the Insurance Act and violated the conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to statutory requirements, and therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured or pay any compensation. Respondent No.3 also denied the dependency of Petitioners/Claimants No.1 to 5 and contended that they are not entitled to any compensation. It is further submitted that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. In any event, if this Hon’ble Tribunal comes to the conclusion that compensation is payable, the interest, if any, should be awarded 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 only from the date of award and not from the date of the petition. The rate of interest claimed at 12% per annum is highly excessive and contrary to law. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- “1. Whether the deceased/Allada Prasad, s/o.sanyasi @ Sanyasi Rao died on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 13.07.2019 at about 8:00 a.m., near NH road, shikaruganji road junction, vizianagaram District? If so, whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of container Lorry bearing No.AP 31 CW 6441 by its Driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation for the death of deceased/Allada Prasad, S/o.Sanyasi @ Sanyasi Rao? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and P.Ws.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3/Insurer, Ex.B1- copy of insurance policy was marked. 7. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with costs and with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till 8 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 the date of payment by respondents, and apportioned the compensation amount amongst the claimants as indicated in the operative portion extracted above. 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.3/insurer preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and erred in fixing liability on the insurer. It is further contended that the claim made by the claimants is excessive and assessing the income of the deceased on higher side. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 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. To prove the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, the claimants relied upon the evidence PW-2, eye witness and Exs.A1 to A5. A perusal of the record reveals that PW-2 has categorically deposed that on the fateful day, after completion of work while he was returning to his village, when he reached Shikarugani road junction, one container lorry proceeding towards Ramabhadrapuram drove the 9 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 lorry with high speed in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and without following traffic rules and dashed the motorcycle, fell down, sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Exs.A1 and A3, attested copy of FIR and charge- sheet respectively, would show that the police registered a case in Cr.No.58 of 2019, investigated the crime and laid a charge sheet against him. Though the insurer took a plea that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to substantiate that plea. Thus, on the basis of the evidence of PW-2-eye-witness coupled with Exs.A1 and A3/attested copies of FIR and Charge sheet, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime motor cycle. 11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, as per the evidence of PW-1, the deceased was a labourer and also used to run cell phone accessories business and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but in the absence of any evidence to that extent, the Tribunal assessed the income of Rs.10,000/- and after deducting 1/4th of his income towards personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘16’ applicable for the age of deceased i.e., 32 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla 10 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of dependency to be Rs.14,40,000/- (7,500x12x16). Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi2, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and 40% towards future prospectus Rs.5,76,000/-(14,40,000x40x100). The Tribunal following the applicable decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,86,000/-. However, as the claimants claimed only Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation, the Tribunal has restricted to compensation awarded Rs.20,00,000/- only, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side and claimants are also entitled for interest at 9% per annum as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Upahar Tragedy3. 12. So far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, it is to be noted that Ex.B1-policy certificate would disclose that 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2011 (4) SCC 481 11 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.NO.234 OF 2022 the crime motor cycle was validly insured with respondent No.3/Insurer and that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Since the crime vehicle was insured with the insurer and Ex.B1 policy certificate was in force as on the date of accident, the Tribunal held that the respondent No.3/insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming of the order dated 24.01.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 27.01.2026 LSP