APHC010302422022 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. AMMANABROLU VENKATA NARASIMHARAO,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/ O. FLAT NO. 102, B BLOCK, KEERTHI RENDEZOUS APARTMENT, 16 MAIN ROAD, PAI LAYOUT, BANGALOURE CITY, KARNATAKA STATE-560016. 2. AMMANABROLU LEELA NARESH KUMAR,, S/O. VENKATASUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 19 37, 2ND LINE, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, TIRUPATHI TOWN, CHITTOR DISTRICT 3. AMMANABROLU SATYA TULASI PRASAD,, SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3 JETTIPALEM, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 517644. 1. KOLLI KISHORE, S/O. YEDUKONDALU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. POTHURAJUGANDI, SANJEEVARIAGAR, ADDANKI POST MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2. KOLLI YEDUKONDALU, S/O. SINGAIAH, R/O. POTHURAJUGANDI, SANJEEVANAGAR, ADDANKI POST AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523201. 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: 279 OF AMMANABROLU VENKATA NARASIMHARAO,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/ O. FLAT NO. 102, B BLOCK, KEERTHI RENDEZOUS APARTMENT, 16-E CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PAI LAYOUT, BANGALOURE CITY, KARNATAKA AMMANABROLU LEELA NARESH KUMAR,, S/O. VENKATASUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 19 37, 2ND LINE, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, TIRUPATHI TOWN, CHITTOR DISTRICT- 517 501. AMMANABROLU SATYA TULASI PRASAD,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3 JETTIPALEM, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND KOLLI KISHORE, S/O. YEDUKONDALU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. POTHURAJUGANDI, SANJEEVARIAGAR, ADDANKI POST MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523201. KOLLI YEDUKONDALU, S/O. SINGAIAH, R/O. POTHURAJUGANDI, SANJEEVANAGAR, ADDANKI POST AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM 523201. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 279 OF 2022 AMMANABROLU VENKATA NARASIMHARAO,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/ O. FLAT NO. 102, B- E CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PAI LAYOUT, BANGALOURE CITY, KARNATAKA AMMANABROLU LEELA NARESH KUMAR,, S/O. VENKATASUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 19-14- 37, 2ND LINE, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, TIRUPATHI TOWN, S/O. VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-931, JETTIPALEM, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT- ...APPELLANT(S) KOLLI KISHORE, S/O. YEDUKONDALU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. POTHURAJUGANDI, SANJEEVARIAGAR, ADDANKI POST AND KOLLI YEDUKONDALU, S/O. SINGAIAH, R/O. POTHURAJUGANDI, SANJEEVANAGAR, ADDANKI POST AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM 2 3. DEVARAKONDA KOTESWARARAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-105A, GURAKAYAPALEM VILLAGE, ADDANKI POST AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, OWNER OF AUTO NO. AP 27TW 8323, 4. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, POLICY NO. 201862240121, VALID FROM 17-06-2014 TO 16-06-2015. 5. M/S LEAAP INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OWNER OF CONTAINER LORRY BEARING NO. TN 04 AC 7074, R/O. 46, RAJAJI SALAI, PARRYS, CHENNAI- 600001. 6. FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, 1,2,3 FLOORS, PLOT NO.55(OLD PLOT NO. 27), VIJAYA RAGHAVA ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU- 600017, POLICY NO. 2015- V3652145FCV, VALID FROM 01-04-2015 TO 31-03-2016 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this MACMA and set a-side the Order and Decree in O.P.No. 93/2019 dated 04-04-2022 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court), Prakasam at Ongole as prayed by the petitioners in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 279 OF 2022 JUDGMENT:- This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the Appellants/ Claimants, aggrieved by the Award, dated 04.04.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.93 of 2019 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (in short ‘the Tribunal), wherein learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 7,54,200/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition, till the date of realization payable by Respondents No. 2 and 3 jointly and severally as against the claim of Rs. 25,00,000/-, exonerating Respondents No.5 and 6, who are owner and insurer of the lorry. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The claimants are brothers of the deceased i.e Ammanabrolu Pavan Nagaraja Kumar,(hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor accident. On 24.04.2015 after attending his paternal aunt death ceremony, while returning from Addanki to Ongole in an Auto bearing No. AP 27 TW 8323 and when he reached Yedugundlapadu Village, opposite to Eicher Showroom on NH-16, the driver of the multi axle goods vehicle bearing No. TN 04 AC 7074 was stationed on road 4 without applying signals. The driver of the auto had dashed the lorry on its back due to which the deceased, who was travelling in the said auto sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No. 43 of 2015 of Maddipadu Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. As the Petitioners were depending on the deceased having suffered mentally and lost earnings of the deceased due to his sudden demise have filed a claim petition as against the Respondents 2 to 5. 4. The Respondents No.1 to 3 are remained exparte. 5. The Respondent No.4 filed Counter-Affidavit denying material averments in the Claim Petition and inter alia contended that the driver of the Auto bearing No. AP 27 TW 8323 was not holding any valid driving license at the time of accident and that he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license as he has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. After investigation, the Maddipadu Police filed a Charge Sheet under Section 3 read with Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The Respondent No.4 further contended that the Respondents 2 and 3 willfully and knowingly handed over the possession of the vehicle to the said driver, who has no valid driving license as on the date of accident thereby committed beach of the contract and violated terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, the Respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 5 6. The Respondent No.6 filed Written Statement denying averments in the claim petition, inter alia, contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of lorry bearing No. TN 04 AC 7074 and the said fact also revealed during investigation by the Police did not file Charge Sheet against the lorry driver. It is further contended that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that Respondent No.6 is liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioners. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing registration No. AP 27 TW 8323? 2. Whether the deceased Ammanabrolu Pavan Nagaraja Kumar died in a road accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom” 4. To what relief? 8. On behalf of the Petitioners/ Claimants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the Respondents, RWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 and Exs. X1 and X2 were marked. 9. The Tribunal having gone through the pleadings, evidence of PW-1, PW-2, (eye-witness) RWs-1 to 5, Ex.A1 to A10, B1 to B9, X1 and X2, held the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants by giving a finding that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent 6 No.1 and driver of the lorry bearing TN 04 AC 7074, which stationed on the road without applying signals, due to which, the driver of the auto has dashed the said lorry on its back. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injury and died on spot. 10. However, the Court below relying upon Ex.A1 i.e FIR and Ex.A4 Inquest Report and Ex.A5 Charge Sheet has held that as a case was registered only against the driver of the Auto for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and Section 3, read with 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry and exonerated the liability of the Respondents No. 5 and 6, who are owner and insurance company of the said lorry. Challenging the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the claimants. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. Considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who are eye-witness to the accident, who categorically deposed that on 24.04.2015 at about 9.30 p.m, he was coming from Guntur to Ongole, at that time, a vehicle bearing No. TN 04 AC 7074 was parked on the highway without applying any signals. The driver of the auto could not observe the stationed vehicle bearing No. TN 04 AC 7074 and dashed against the said lorry due to which a young man died on the spot. Coupled with Ex.A1 i.e C.C of FIR, 7 Ex.A4 i.e C.C of Inquest Report and Ex.A5 i.e C.C of Charge Sheet, the Tribunal held that there is no negligence on the part of the stationed lorry, the Tribunal opined that the Petition is bad for mis-joinder of Respondents 4 and 5 and they are liable to be exonerated in paying compensation to the Claimants, relying upon the Charge Sheet i.e Ex.A5. 13. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Appellants argued that the evidence recorded in criminal case cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which in fact is summary in nature, and in support of his contentions he relied on “Janabai W, D/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade Vs. M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd1.,wherein it is held as follows:- “ We find that the Rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of Appellant No.1, who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable”. 14. Learned counsel for the Appellants relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari and Others”2, wherein it was held as follows:- “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden 1 2022(3) ACC 2 (2021) 18 SCC 596 8 right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye witness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report. 15. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that PWs 1 and 2 (eye witnesses) were examined, who have categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the lorry on the high way without applying any signals and the Tribunal held the issue in favour of the Claimants by holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the auto bearing No. AP 27 TW 8323 by its driver i.e Respondent No.1. 16. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, though it is the case of the Claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month by doing business in solar equipment. In the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.5,500/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor half of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs. 33,000/- (Rs. 66,000/- x ½). After applying the appropriate multiplier ‘16’ for the age group of 34 years, as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma and 9 Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another”3, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 5,28,000/- (Rs. 33,000/- x 16). As the age of the deceased 34 years as on the date of the accident, he is entitled for an additional amount of 40% of his income towards his future prospects i.e Rs.2,11,200/- (Rs.5,28,000/- x 40%) as held by the Apex Court in “National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi”4. The Tribunal also granted funeral expenses as Rs. 15,000/- under conventional head. Thus, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.7,54,200/- with subsequently interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of Petition, till the date of realization. 17. In view of the same, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by confirming the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to a tune of Rs.7,54,200/- with interest at 7.5 % p.a from the date of Petition, till the date of realization payable by the Respondents 4 and 5 jointly and severally along with Respondents 2 and 3 herein. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 02.02.2026 KK 3 2009 ACJ 1298 4 2018 ACJ 2782