APHC010276562022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 304/2022 Between: 1. M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MNK BUILDING, KMR ROAD, TADEPALLIGUDEM BAJAR, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SATHI BUJI, S/O. VENKATA REDDY, HINDU, MALE, AGE 35 YEARS, DRIVER OF BUS BEARING NO. AP 16 TX 2888, D.NO.28-648, PENTAPADU MANDAL, WEST GODVARI DISTRICT. 2. VELAGALA SUBBI REDDY, S/O. CHELLA REDDY, HINDU, AGE 48 YEARS, OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO. AP 16TX 2888, D.NO.61-12- 4/4, GAYATRI STREET, RAMALINGESWRA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN MOVP NO.53/2015 3. AKULA PADMA, W/O. LATE SATYANAAYNA MURTHY, HINDU, FEMALE, AGE 44 YEARS, HOUSE-WIFE, D.NO.2-182, PYDIPARRU, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (DIED ON 12-02- 2019 AS PER DEATH CERTIFICATE). 4. AKULA VENU MADHAV, S/O. LATE SATYANAAYNA MURTHY, HINDU, MALE, AGE 28 YEARS, COOLIE, D.NO.2-182, PYDIPARRU, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. AKULA KRISHNA PRASAD, S/O. LATE SATYANAAYNA MURTHY, HINDU, MALE, AGE 21 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, D.NO.2-182, PYDIPARRU, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. AKULA SWARAJYA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE AKULA VENU MADHAV, HINDU, FEMALE, AGE 34 YEARS, HOUSE-WIFE, MALLESWARAM 2 VS,J MACMA No.304 of 2022 VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. AKULA SASI KUMAR, S/O. LATE AKULA VENU MADHAV, HINDU, MALE, AGE 8 YEARS,MALLESWARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. AKULA HIMESH SATYA SRI, S/O. LATE AKULA VENU MADHAV, HINDU, FEMALE, AGE 4 YEARS,MALLESWARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtbe pleased to set aside the award in MVOP No. 53/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge's Court, West Godavari at Tanuku and allow the MACMA 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 condone the delay of 17 days in filing Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Appeal in M.V.O.P. No. 53/2015 dt. 29-11-2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum IV additifonal District Judge, West Godavari at Tanuku IA NO: 2 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 all proceedings in award and decree in MVOP No. 53/2015 dt. 29-11-2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Tanuku Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. BHAGAT SINGH KOWRU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.304 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the order and decree dated 29.11.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.53 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Tanuku, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the claimants, to the claimants, as per their claim, on account of the death of the deceased Satyanarayana Murthy in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.05.2012. 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) The deceased boarded a Tourist Bus bearing No.AP 16 TX 2888 at Navabpalem as a cook and the bus went to Shiridi. After completion of the work, during the return journey on 23.05.2012 at about 5.30 a.m., when the bus reached Chebrolu, the deceased was sitting near the seat of the conductor. At that time, the driver of the bus i.e., respondent No.1, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the deceased fell down from the bus and sustained severe injuries. Initially, he was taken to RMP Doctor at K.Lakshmi Jagannadhapuram and later shifted to Sri Balaji Hospital, Tanuku. As his condition became critical, he was taken to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, where, while undergoing treatment, 4 VS,J MACMA No.304 of 2022 he died on 29.05.2012 at about 7.15 p.m.. Based on the report given by the 2nd petitioner, the Chebrolu Police registered a case in Crime No.138 of 2012 under Section 304-A IPC. 04. The claimants contended before the Tribunal that prior to the accident, the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as a cook and was contributing the same to the family. It was further contended that the deceased died at the age of 50 yeas and that the 1st claimant suffered mental agony and loss of consortium, while claimants 2 and 3 suffered loss of love and affection. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 05. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 06. Respondent No.3/insurance company filed a written statement denying the income of the deceased and as well as their entitlement to compensation. It was also contended that the rate of interest claimed was excessive. Thus, they sought dismissal of the petition. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the death of the deceased caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TX 2888 or not? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondent No.1 to 3 as prayed for or not? 3. To what relief? 5 VS,J MACMA No.304 of 2022 08. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On behalf of the 3rdrespondent, its Administrative Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1/copy of policy was marked. 09. After hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition, with the following terms: ―a) the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. b) the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners. c) the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid with interest at 7.5% per annum. d) the respondents shall deposit the compensation amount with interest and costs within two months from the date of Award/Judgment before this Tribunal. e) on failure of the respondents to deposit the compensation amount within two months, the petitioners are at liberty to execute the Award/Judgment. f) on deposit of compensation amount, the 2nd petitioner represented by the petitioner No.4 to No.6 and the petitioner No.3 are entitled for Rs.2,50,000/- each with proportionate interest. They are entitled to withdraw Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest on Rs.2,50,000/-. The remaining balance of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in Nationalized Bank for a period of Two years. g) the petitioners are entitled for costs of the petition and the Advocate fee at Rs.2,000/-. The petitioners are entitled for the such amount in equal share.‖ 6 VS,J MACMA No.304 of 2022 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal contending that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured vehicle was permitted to ply only within Krishna District for the period from 29.10.2007 to 28.10.2012. It is contended that the vehicle was being plied at T. Gollagudem, within Chebrolu Police Station limits of West Godavari District, in violation of policy conditions and, therefore, the liability ought to have been fastened on respondent Nos.1 and 2, but not on the Insurance Company. 11. Heard Mr.K.Subramanyam, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that P.W.2, who travelled in the bus on the date of the accident, is an eye-witness. Her evidence clearly establishes that the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries, ultimately leading to his death. Ex.P1—F.I.R. and Ex.P9—charge sheet also support the said version. R.W.1, examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the 7 VS,J MACMA No.304 of 2022 manner of the accident. In the absence of any contra evidence, it is clear that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard requires no interference. 14. Though the Insurance Company raised a contention regarding violation of route permit, admittedly, no such plea was taken in the written statement before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also observed that Ex.R1/policy does not disclose any restriction that the vehicle shall not be plied outside Krishna District. Therefore, the evidence of R.W.1 is beyond the pleadings and was rightly not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the Insurance Company is estopped from raising the said plea before this Court. 15. With regard to the quantum of compensation, though the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, no documentary evidence was filed. In such circumstances, the Tribunal, relying on the average wage for the year 2011–2012 as per the International Labour Organization, took the daily wage at Rs.247/- and fixed the monthly income at Rs.7,500/- (Rs.247 × 30). Accordingly, the annual income was taken at Rs.90,000/-. As the deceased was aged 50 years and self-employed, 10% was added towards future prospects as per National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi 1 thereby fixing the annual income at Rs.99,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution to the family was taken at Rs.66,000/- per annum. Applying the relevant multiplier ‗13‘, for the age of the deceased i.e., 50 years as recorded in Ex.P2/Inquest report and 1 2017 ACJ 2700 8 VS,J MACMA No.304 of 2022 Ex.P3/Postmortem Report, as per the decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 the loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,58,000/-. However, since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and as per the Schedule, the maximum income is taken at Rs.40,000/- per annum, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,80,000/-. 16. Further, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (referred supra), the claimants are entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,50,000/- (Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs.70,000/-). However, since the claim is restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-, the claimants are entitled only to the said amount. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. 17. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 18. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 16.03.2026 KGR 22009 ACJ 1298