APHC010342112022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 355/2022 Between: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT GANDHI NAGAR, NELLORE (POLICY NO.15010031156300008408 VALID FROM 15.01.2016 TO 14.01.2017 ISSUED BY KOLKATA DIVISION) ...APPELLANT AND 1. MENATI SUDARSINI SUDARSANAMMA, W/O LATE MENATIVENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF SOMARAJUPALLI VILLAGE INDUKURPET MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 2. MENATI PAVANI, D/O LATE MENATI VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED 19 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF SOMARAJUPALLI VILLAGE INDUKURPET MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 3. ANIL MACHHAREKAR DRIVER, S/O SURESH MACHHAREKAR, HINDU, AGED 47 YEARS, CONTAINER DRIVER, R/O. GALLI NO.9, NAREGAON VILLAGE, AURANGABAD DISTRICT-431 001 MAHARASTRA STATE 4. M/S BHARAT ROAD WAYS OWNER, 19A, SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL-700 020 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tomay be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the decree and 2 VS,J MACMA No.355 of 2022 order dated 31.01.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore - Cum-1 Additional District Judge, Nellore and dismiss the M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2017 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 2 herein / Claim Petitioners against the Appellant herein / Respondent No-3 in the lower court and pass such 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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal against the proceedings dated 31.01.2022 passed in M.V 0.P.No.226 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore - Cum-1 Additional District Judge, Nellore and pass such 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings dated 31 01.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Nellore - Cum- I Additional District Judge, Nellore including execution proceedings and pass such IA NO: 3 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 vacate the interim order granted in I. A. No. 2 OF 2022 In MACMA NO.355 OF 2022 Dt.12.09.2022 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.355 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The insurance company filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 31.01.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,60,000/- (Rupees Twenty four lakhs sixty thousand only) to the petitioners/claimants, though the claim petition was originally filed for Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Menati Venkaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 21.10.2016. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 04. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: On 21.10.2016, the deceased Menati Venkaiah, and his father Venkateswarlu and one Kaduru Vijaya Bhaskar had loaded sheep in their own vehicle i.e., Ashok Leyland Truck and had stationed the truck on the margin of the road due to exhaust of fuel. At about 6.30 hours, near Kommalapudi Cross Road Centre, on NH-16 Road, Manubolu Mandal, the driver of Eicher Container Lorry bearing No.WB-03-C-7806, who is the 1st respondent, drove the Container Lorry in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, without blowing horn from Nellore towards Chennai, and dashed against the rear side of the stationed Ashok Leyland Sheep load Truck No.AP-26-TB-8343. As a result of which, the driver of the Truck i.e., the deceased and his father and 4 VS,J MACMA No.355 of 2022 Kaduru Vijaya Bhaskar received serious bleeding injuries and died on the spot. 05. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was selling coconuts and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family. Due his sudden death, the claimants lost their breadwinner as well as their affectionate family member. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents. 06. Before the Tribunal, 1st and 2nd respondents were ex parte. 07. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed a counter denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased, as well as the manner of the accident. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the truck on the road. It was also contended that since two vehicles were involved, the owner and insurer of the truck were necessary parties and non-joinder was fatal to the claim. The insurance company further contended that there was no valid contract of insurance and that the drivers of both vehicles did not posses valid driving licenses at the time of the accident. Hence, it prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 5 VS,J MACMA No.355 of 2022 “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Container Lorry bearing Reg.No.WB-03-C-7806? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so to what extent and amount? and 3. To what relief? 08. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.s 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1/insurance policy was marked. 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with interest and costs, awarding a total compensation of Rs.24,60,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. Out of the total compensation, Rs.20,00,000/- was apportioned to the 1st petitioner, Rs.4,60,000/- was apportioned to the 2nd petitioner. The respondents were directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of the award, and upon such deposit, the 1st petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- from the amount apportioned to her, and the 2nd was permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/-. The balance amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years and thereafter they are at liberty to withdraw the same. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/insurance company preferred this appeal contending that the truck was negligently parked on the road, and therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of its driver. 6 VS,J MACMA No.355 of 2022 It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned liability between both vehicles. It is also contended that the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.15,000/- per month without any proof and that the compensation awarded is excessive. It was also argued that since the driver did not have a valid driving license, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 11. Heard Mrs.A.Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Mr.Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the claimants. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. Though it is the contention of the appellant that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the petitioners/claimants relied upon the testimony of P.W.4, who was an eye-witness to the accident, to substantiate that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. P.W.4, having given a detailed narration about the manner of accident, has categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the deceased, having received serious bleeding injuries, died on the spot. A perusal of the impugned award further shows that nothing adverse was 7 VS,J MACMA No.355 of 2022 elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.4 to discredit or discard his evidence. The Tribunal, having considered the evidence of P.W.4/eye-witness coupled with Ex.A1-copy of the F.I.R. registered in connection with the accident and Ex.A4-copy of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, and no interference is warranted with the said finding. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by selling coconuts, they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the actual earnings of the deceased. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal took the notional income into consideration and fixed the same at Rs.500/- per day i.e., Rs.15,000/- per month (Rs.500 x 30 days). However, this Court is of the opinion that, as the accident occurred in the year 2017 and having regard to the minimum wages prevailing at that time, it would be appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor, aged about 20 years, the Tribunal deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘18’ applicable to the age of the petitioner i.e., 20 years as recorded in Ex.A3/inquest report and Ex.A5/postmortem certificate, arrived at Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.10,000 – 50% X 18 X 12) as his contribution to his family, and as the deceased was below 40 years old, an addition of 50% of the amount, i.e., Rs.16,20,000/-, (Rs.10,80,000/- + 50%) was rightly awarded 8 VS,J MACMA No.355 of 2022 towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, which is just and proper. However, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 who is mother of the deceased, though she entitled for the same, in view of the settled legal position. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- to petitioner No.1 towards consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,90,000/-. 15. Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal, in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of dependency Rs.24,30,000/- Rs.16,20,000/- Funeral expenses and obsequies Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium -- Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.24,60,000/- Rs.16,90,000/- 1 2009 ACJ 1298 9 VS,J MACMA No.355 of 2022 16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed, reducing the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.24,60,000/- to Rs.16,90,000/-. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 24.02.2026 KGR