APHC010280512021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, M.N.R BUILDINGS, NEAR SANTA MARKET, K N ROAD, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. NEELAPU LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE PUMA REDDY, F, H, 34 YRS, HOUSE WIFE AND DEPENDANT, HOUSE NO.5-60, NEAR MARKET YARD, V. V. NAGAR, KOMADAVOLE, ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. NEELLAPU DURGA SOMULU REDDY, , S/O. LATE PUMA @ PURNACHANDRA REDDY, M, H, 11 YRS, STUDENT AND DEPENDENT, HOUSE NO. 5 KOMADAVOLE, ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. NEELAPU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE PUMA @ PURNACHANDRA REDDY M, H, 9 YRS, STUDENT AND DEPENDANT, HOUSE NO.5 60, NEAR MARKET YARD, V V NAGAR, KO MANDAL, WEST GODAWARI DISTRICT. 4. GADE MANIKANTA VARA PRASAD, S/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, M, H, 30YRS, DRIVER OF TATA INDICA CAR BEARING NO. AP37 BV 2376, D.NO.24 ROAD, BANDIVARI STREET, SAJJAPURAM, TANUKU GODAWARI DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 136 OF THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, M.N.R BUILDINGS, NEAR SANTA MARKET, K N ROAD, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI ...APPELLANT AND NEELAPU LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE PUMA @ PURNACHANDRA REDDY, F, H, 34 YRS, HOUSE WIFE AND DEPENDANT, HOUSE 60, NEAR MARKET YARD, V. V. NAGAR, KOMADAVOLE, ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT NEELLAPU DURGA SOMULU REDDY, , S/O. LATE PUMA @ PURNACHANDRA REDDY, M, H, 11 YRS, STUDENT AND DEPENDENT, HOUSE NO. 5-60, NEAR MARKET YARD, V.V. NAGAR, KOMADAVOLE, ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. NEELAPU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE PUMA @ PURNACHANDRA REDDY M, H, 9 YRS, STUDENT AND DEPENDANT, HOUSE NO.5 60, NEAR MARKET YARD, V V NAGAR, KOMADAVOLE, ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAWARI DISTRICT. GADE MANIKANTA VARA PRASAD, S/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, M, H, 30YRS, DRIVER OF TATA INDICA CAR BEARING NO. AP37 BV 2376, D.NO.24-2-4/8, EVULAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, BANDIVARI STREET, SAJJAPURAM, TANUKU GODAWARI DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 136 OF 2022 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, M.N.R BUILDINGS, NEAR SANTA MARKET, K N ROAD, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI ...APPELLANT @ PURNACHANDRA REDDY, F, H, 34 YRS, HOUSE WIFE AND DEPENDANT, HOUSE 60, NEAR MARKET YARD, V. V. NAGAR, KOMADAVOLE, NEELLAPU DURGA SOMULU REDDY, , S/O. LATE PUMA @ PURNACHANDRA REDDY, M, H, 11 YRS, STUDENT AND 60, NEAR MARKET YARD, V.V. NAGAR, KOMADAVOLE, ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. NEELAPU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE PUMA @ PURNACHANDRA REDDY M, H, 9 YRS, STUDENT AND DEPENDANT, HOUSE NO.5- MADAVOLE, ELURU GADE MANIKANTA VARA PRASAD, S/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, M, H, 30YRS, DRIVER OF TATA INDICA CAR 4/8, EVULAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, BANDIVARI STREET, SAJJAPURAM, TANUKU, WEST 2 5. SMT GADE RAMA LAKSHMI, W/O. MANIKNATA VARA PRASAD, F, H, AGE NOT KNOWN, OWNER OF TATA INDICA CAR BEARING NO. AP 37 BV 2376, D. NO. 24-2-4/8, EVULAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, BANDIVARI STREET, SAJJAPURAM, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Decree and Judgment dated 18-09-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 95 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and pass s 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 Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 391 days caused in filing an appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 18-09-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and pass 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 Hon'ble Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in the decree and Judgment dated 18-09-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 95 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-11 Addl. District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU 2. N.S.V.D.KARTEEK The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 136 OF 2022 JUDGMENT:- The Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree 18.09.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs twenty thousand only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Mr. Neelapu Purna @ Purnachandra Reddy in a motor accident that occurred on 30.09.2015. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: On 30.09.2015, deceased left the house on his bicycle to a fruit shop situated near Asram Hospital Centre, Malkapuram on his personal work. On completion of his work, he returned on the same bicycle. On the way while deceased was peddling the cycle on extreme left side of the road near Javvadi Industries, opposite to Saibaba temple, a Tata Indica Car bearing No. AP 37 BV 2376 which came from behind at high speed on wrong side of the road, dashed his bicycle. As a result, he fell down and received injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru and latter shifted to Vijayawada. The Police registered a case in Crime 4 No. 270 of 2015 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the car i.e Respondent No.1. Seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the said accident, the petitioners, who are the wife and children of the deceased, filed the claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. 4. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 and 2 remained ex parte. 5. The Respondent No.3 filed Written Statement resisting the claim of the Petitioners and inter alia contended that the accident occurred solely due to negligence of deceased and Respondent No.1 is not at all negligent in driving the crime vehicle. The Respondent No.1 did not possess valid driving license and Respondent No.2 being owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thereby he being insurer is not liable to indemnify him and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 30.09.2015 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indica car bearing No. AP 37 BV 2376 by 1st respondent and whether the deceased Purna @ Purnachandra Reddy died in the said accident? 2. Whether the crime vehicle Tata Indica Car bearing No. AP 37 BV 2376 driven by 1st respondent owned by 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent at the relevant time? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of respondents? 5 4. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 to X3 were also marked. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that RW-2 i.e Senior Assistant, RTA, Tanuku, who categorically deposed that the Respondent No.1/ Driver of the crime vehicle was not issued with driving license to drive the LMV. The Appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay the liability to the claimants as there is no driving license for the driver of crime vehicle, which is gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The quantum of compensation awarded to the Petitioners was also questioned on the ground that it is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has supported the impugned Award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6 11. Though notice was served on the Respondent No.5/owner of the offending vehicle, there is no representation on his behalf. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. The main contention raised by the Insurance Company is that the Respondent No.1 did not possess valid driving license and Respondent No.2 being the owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thereby he being insurer is not liable to indemnify the Respondent No.2 and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was working as hamali worker in the market yard, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income as Rs. 5,000/- which is excessive. 14. However, it is to be noted that in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance company may still be directed to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the insured (owner of the vehicle). This ensures that the rights of the third-party victim are protected and it was emphasized that insurance policies are statutorily required to protect third parties, and even in 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 7 cases of breach by the insured, the insurer's liability towards third-party victims does not vanish immediately. 15. In the case on hand, the evidence adduced by the claimants before the Tribunal would substantially prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. In view of the same and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, the contention of the Appellant that it cannot be directed to pay the compensation cannot be accepted, but however, as there is violation of terms and conditions of policy, the Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation to the Claimants first and then recover the same from the insured/ owner of the vehicle. 16. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, P.Ws 1 to 4 have categorically deposed that the deceased was working as hamali worker in Market Yard and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. But in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was working as hamali worker in the market yard, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income as Rs. 5,000/-. As he was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, 25% of his monthly income would be added towards future prospects. As such, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 6,250/-. Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. 6,250/- x 12). As there are three dependents in the present case, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/3rd, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.50,000/- (Rs. 75,000/- - Rs. 25,000/-). After applying the appropriate 8 multiplier i.e ‘13’ for the age group of 39 years, as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation’2, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- x 13). 17. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads such as loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus the total compensation awarded by Tribunal is Rs. 7,20,000/-, which are just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. 18. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the Claimant and as well as exhibits relied on by him has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the Claimant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 7,20,000/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the Claimant. 19. In view of the above discussion, while confirming the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the appeal in-part by directing the Appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 20. With the above direction, this appeal is partly allowed. No costs. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 9 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.02.2026 KK