APHC010293192022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TENTH 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 LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM DMC 1. KAVURI MANGA RATNAM, W/O CHINA BALAYOGESWARARAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.7 80, GUNNIGUNTA CHERUVU STREET, GUNNIGUNTA CHERUVU, BHEEMANAPALLI VILLAGE, UPPALAGUPTAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KOTHAPETA DMC. 2. GEDDAM NEELAVENI, D/O ABBULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1 EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KOTHAPETA DMC. 3. GEDDAM SONIA, D/O ABBULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O D.NO.1 KOTHAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KOTHAPETA DMC 4. DOMMETI VENKA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC DRIVER OF THE AUTO BEARING NO. AP 5 TX 5955, R/O GUNNEPALLI VILLAGE, AMBAJIPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. GANAPATHI RESTAURANT AND BAR, REP. BY PROP. MADDURI RAMBABU, OWNER D.NO.7-1-47, PADHMAANABHA COMPLEX, AMALAPURAM, AMALAPURAM DMC. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 216 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM DMC ...APPELLANT AND KAVURI MANGA RATNAM, W/O CHINA BALAYOGESWARARAO, ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.7 80, GUNNIGUNTA CHERUVU STREET, GUNNIGUNTA CHERUVU, BHEEMANAPALLI VILLAGE, UPPALAGUPTAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KOTHAPETA DMC. GEDDAM NEELAVENI, D/O ABBULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-107, PEDAPETA, VADAPALEM, KOTHAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KOTHAPETA DMC. GEDDAM SONIA, D/O ABBULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O D.NO.1-107, PEDAPETA, VADAPALEM, KOTHAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KOTHAPETA DMC DOMMETI VENKATA LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O SRIRAMULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC DRIVER OF THE AUTO BEARING NO. AP 5 TX 5955, R/O GUNNEPALLI VILLAGE, AMBAJIPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. GANAPATHI RESTAURANT AND BAR, REP. BY PROP. MADDURI RAMBABU, OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO. AP 5 TX 5955, R/O 47, PADHMAANABHA COMPLEX, AMALAPURAM, AMALAPURAM DMC. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 216 OF 2022 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, ...APPELLANT KAVURI MANGA RATNAM, W/O CHINA BALAYOGESWARARAO, ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.7- 80, GUNNIGUNTA CHERUVU STREET, GUNNIGUNTA CHERUVU, BHEEMANAPALLI VILLAGE, UPPALAGUPTAM MANDAL, EAST GEDDAM NEELAVENI, D/O ABBULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 31 7, PEDAPETA, VADAPALEM, KOTHAPETA, GEDDAM SONIA, D/O ABBULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 107, PEDAPETA, VADAPALEM, KOTHAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KOTHAPETA DMC TA LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O SRIRAMULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC DRIVER OF THE AUTO BEARING NO. AP 5 TX 5955, R/O GUNNEPALLI VILLAGE, GANAPATHI RESTAURANT AND BAR, REP. BY PROP. MADDURI OF AUTO BEARING NO. AP 5 TX 5955, R/O 47, PADHMAANABHA COMPLEX, AMALAPURAM, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P L RAO 2. V VIJAYA VARDHAN 3. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following Judgment : The Insurance Company i.e Respondent No.3 filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 14.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.511 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,51,200/-, as against the claim of Rs.9,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Geddam Vara Prasad @ Siva, in a motor accident that occurred on 15.07.2014. 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: The Petitioners are sisters of Geddam Vara Prasad @ Siva (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) who met with a motorcycle accident on 15.07.2014 at about 9.00 a.m at Ambedkar Statue, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Modekurru Village due to hitting by crime vehicle Auto bearing No. AP 05 TX 5955 driven by the Respondent No.1 and owned by RW-3, which was insured with 3 Respondent No.3 respectively at the time of accident. It is contended that the deceased was driving the Hero Hond Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 BU 6853, while proceeding towards Amalapuram along with PW-2 and her daughter as pillion riders, when their vehicle reached near Ambedkar statue, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Modekurru Village at about 9.00 a.m, at that time, the Respondent No.1 being driver of Auto bearing No AP 05 TX 5955 in high speed, rash and negligent manner without blowing horn dashed the said motorcycle, as a result, they fell down on the road. The deceased sustained serious injuries to his head and all over his body. Immediately the injured was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Amalapuram and later he was referred to GGH, Kakinada. While undergoing treatment, the deceased had succumbed to death. Therefore, the claimants, who are sisters of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the Respondents. 4. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. 5. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed Written Statement resisting the claim of the Petitioners and inter alia contended that the role of the Respondents 1 and 2 is specifically denied and also rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the Respondent No.1 on the premise that actually the death of deceased had resulted due to his rash and negligent driving, resulted in head on collusion between crime vehicle and the Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle driven by the deceased at the time of accident. As such, the owner and insurer of the two wheeler driven by the deceased are proper and necessary parties and on the said ground, the claim petition is liable to be 4 dismissed. It is further contended that the Respondent No.1 was not having any valid driving license to drive the auto owned by RW-3 at the time of accident and that Respondent No.3 is indemnified from the liability on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the claim made by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the death of the deceased is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent while driving the Auto bearing No. AP 05 TX 5955? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so for what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 and 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B6 and Ex.X1 and X2 documents were marked. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the Claimants and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against Respondent No.3, awarding compensation of Rs.6,51,200/- with subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and Respondents No.3 held liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order. 5 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the accident occurred due to head on collision between the motorcycle bearing No. AP 05 BU 6853 driven by the deceased and driver of auto bearing No. AP 05 TX 5955, but whereas the claim petition is filed only against the driver, owner and insurer of the auto without impleading the owner and insurer of motorcycle and that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that since the alleged accident occurred due to head on collision, the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased also contributed to the accident. It is further contended that the Insurance Company established that the driver of the auto was not holding any valid license and in such circumstances the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the insurance company from liability, but the Tribunal erred in giving finding against the Respondent No.3 to pay the amount first and then recover the same from the owner of the auto. Further, the Tribunal has also not properly assessing the monthly income of the deceased and that the compensation awarded 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. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 6 POINT: 12. The Tribunal relying on the ocular testimony of PWs 1 and 3, corroborated with the testimony of PW-2, who is an eye witness to the accident i.e pillion rider of the motor cycle driven by the deceased on the date of alleged accident, who testified that on 15.07.2014 at about 9.00 a.m, she along with his daughter Mounika, aged 6 years occupied as pillion riders on the motorcycle driven by the deceased were reached near Modekurru Village, Mahalakshminagar, that their motorcycle was proceeding slowly and consciously by taking all road precautions, in the meanwhile, the driver of auto bearing No. AP 05 TX 5955 proceeding towards Kothapeta side in opposite direction drove the said vehicle in high speed in rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn was guilty of hitting of their motorcycle, as a result, all of them fell down on the road and sustained injuries and coupled with Ex.A1 copy of FIR, Ex.A5 copy of Charge Sheet as per which after due investigation, the Police filed Charge Sheet as against the driver of the offending vehicle held that the Respondent No.1 was guilty for causing death of deceased in a rash and negligent manner. 13. 13. With regard to ground raised by the Appellant that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and as such, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. It can be observed that the Tribunal has already dealt with the said issue in detail holding that in the absence of any evidence to disprove the case of the claimants the defence pleaded by Respondent No.3 i.e Insurance Company 7 that the Respondent No.1 had no valid driving license at the time of accident held that the said fact is not a valid ground of defence to invoke Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 in favour of Respondent No.3 as per decision of “National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Swaram Singh 1 ” wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurer shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the Claimants at first instance with a liberty to recover the same from the crime vehicle in accordance with law. Accordingly, the point was answered in favour of the claimants. 14. On perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that in the absence of documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.2,500/- per month as the accident took place in the year 2014. The deceased was at the age of 28 years as on the date of accident. As per decision laid down in “National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi”2 an addition of 40% is to be added to the actual income towards future prospects for age group of 28 years. Therefore, monthly notional income of the deceased would come to Rs. 3,500/- (Rs. 2,500/- +40%) and it arrives at Rs. 42,000/- per annum. After deducting 50% of his income towards his personal expenditure, loss of dependency would come to Rs. 21,000/- p.a. Further, after applying the relevant multiplier of ‘17’, as per the decision of the 1 AIR 2004 SC 1531 2 2017 ACJ 2700 8 Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3, the loss of dependency assessed as Rs. 3,57,000/- (Rs. 21,000/- x 17). 15. The Tribunal also awarded compensation under conventional heads viz., loss of love and affection is Rs. 50,000/- and funeral expenses is Rs. 30,000/- respectively, in the opinion of this Court, needs no interference. Therefore, the Claimants are entitled to claim total compensation of Rs.4,37,000/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. 16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts reduced by this Court, are as follows: S.No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Amounts now reduced by this Court 1. Loss of dependency 5,71,200/- 3,57,000/- 2. Pain, loss of love and affection 50,000/- 50,000/- 3. Funeral expenses 30,000/- 30,000/- Total 6,51,200/- 4,37,000/- 17. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs. 6,51,200/- to Rs.4,37,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 2009 ACJ 1298 9 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 10.02.2026 KK