APHC010357232023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS Between: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 1. SAMBARAPU RAJU, S/O. LATE NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 28 YEARS, D.NO.13 VISAKHAPATNAM AND NATIVE RESIDING AT D.NO.2 KALLEPALLI, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. SAMBARAPU APPARAO, S/O. LATE NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 26 YEARS, D.NO.13 VISAKHAPATNAM AND NATIVE RESIDING AT D.NO.2 KALLEPALLI, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. KELLA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE GOVINDA, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLEPALLI VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. SRI CHINTADA GOVIND, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.49 PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. DADI SURESH, S/O. VARAHA ESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 1 ARIPAKA GRAMA VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 393 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND SAMBARAPU RAJU, S/O. LATE NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 28 D.NO.13-92/2, R.R.V.PURAM, VEPAGUNTA, VISAKHAPATNAM AND NATIVE RESIDING AT D.NO.2 KALLEPALLI, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. SAMBARAPU APPARAO, S/O. LATE NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 26 YEARS, D.NO.13-92/2, R.R.V.PURAM, VEPAGUNTA, HAPATNAM AND NATIVE RESIDING AT D.NO.2 KALLEPALLI, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. KELLA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE GOVINDA, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLEPALLI VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. A GOVIND, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.49-54-8/2, NALLA QUARRY, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM. DADI SURESH, S/O. VARAHA ESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 1-120, PEDAYATHAPALEM, ARIPAKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 393 OF 2023 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ...APPELLANT SAMBARAPU RAJU, S/O. LATE NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 28 92/2, R.R.V.PURAM, VEPAGUNTA, VISAKHAPATNAM AND NATIVE RESIDING AT D.NO.2-190A, KALLEPALLI, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. SAMBARAPU APPARAO, S/O. LATE NARASAYYA, HINDU, AGED 26 92/2, R.R.V.PURAM, VEPAGUNTA, HAPATNAM AND NATIVE RESIDING AT D.NO.2-190A, KALLEPALLI, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. KELLA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE GOVINDA, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLEPALLI VILLAGE, L.KOTA MANDAL, A GOVIND, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 36 8/2, NALLA QUARRY, DADI SURESH, S/O. VARAHA ESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 28 120, PEDAYATHAPALEM, PANCHAYAT, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU 2. S SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following Judgment: The Insurance Company/ Respondent No.3 filed the present Appeal challenging the order and decree 01.02.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.1346 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SC & ST Cases (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- to the Claimants i.e Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, as against the claim of 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) for the death of Mr. Sambarapu Narasayya (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident that occurred on 24.04.2016. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows: On 24.04.2016 at about 6.00 p.m, the deceased by name Sambarapu Narasayya and his friend started from his village and while they were going on motorcycle to attend the marriage function at Vizianagaram and on their return from the Vizianagaram after completion of marriage, the deceased friend was 3 driving the motorcycle and the deceased was a pillion rider, and when they reached near Bheemasinghi Village at about 10.00 p.m, a lorry bearing No. AP 31 TW 3798 being driven by Respondent No.1 came in the same direction and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn at high speed dashed behind the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased succumbed crush head and body injuries and died on the spot. The Jami Police, Vizianagaram registered a case in Crime No.72 of 2016 under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC as against the driver of the crime vehicle. 4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company filed Counter contending that the said there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The Respondent No.1 was not having driving license as on the date of occurrence of the accident, further he was under the state of intoxication, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of the death of S. Narasayya in the motor accident held on 24.4.2016 at 6.00 p.m from the respondents? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 4 7. On behalf of the Claimants, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of Respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and Ex.X1 was 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.6,69,000/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed Respondents No.1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally the said amount within a month from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the lorry bearing No. AP 31 TW 3798 was having valid insurance on the date of accident and also having valid permit and F.C, but there is a fundamental violation of policy by Respondent No.2 in allowing Respondent No.1 to drive the lorry without any driving license on the date of accident, which was pleaded and proved by Respondent No.3 by examining RW-1 and also RTA official to prove that the Respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license on the date of accident, but the Tribunal ignored the same, though it was clearly mentioned in the charge sheet against the Respondent No.1 that the Respondent No.1 was not having any driving license. Therefore, the Appellant/ insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive, therefore, prayed to allow the Appeal. 5 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants/ Respondent No.1 to 3 to 4 herein have 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? POINT: 12. Insurance Company filed this Appeal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal failed to observe that there is fundamental violation of Policy by Respondent No.2 in allowing the Respondent No.1 to drive the lorry without any valid driving license. The Police also filed Charge Sheet that the Respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident. Further, though the Appellant herein placed ample evidence by examining RTA as RW-2 and got marked Ex.X1, which shows that the driver was not having valid driving license and that in the charge sheet, the driver was in an intoxication at the time of accident and registered case under Section 185 of IPC, but the Tribunal ignored the same. 13. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that the Claimant No.2, who is son of the deceased was examined as PW-1, who deposed that the accident was occurred on 24.04.2016 at Bheemasinghi Village at about 10.00 p.m due to rash and negligent manner at high speed driven by the Respondent No.1, while the deceased was returning from Vizianagaram on the motorcycle, after attending marriage. The Claimants also got examined 6 PW-2, who is the eye-witness and who also accompanied the deceased at the time of accident and in support of the case of the Claimants with regard to occurrence of the accident stating that the said accident took place due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PWs-1 and 2, coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 opined that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1, due to which the deceased sustained severe crush injuries, died on the spot, and held the issue No.1 in favour of the Claimants. 14. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, though it is the case of the Claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal considered the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and annual income would be come Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. 4,500/- x 12). After adding 25% towards future prospects, his monthly income would be at Rs.5,625/- as per decision of “National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi” 1 then it comes to Rs.13,500/- i.e (Rs.54,000/- x 25%). Therefore, the total loss of income of the deceased would be at Rs. 67,500/- (Rs. 54,000/- +13,500/-). As there are 3 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.45,000/-(Rs.67,500/- x 22,500/-). After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. 13 for the age group of 50 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport 1 2018 ACJ 2782 7 Corporation2”, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.45,000/- x 13) Rs.5,85,000/-. 15. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded under conventional heads i.e loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses is Rs. 18,000/-, Rs. 48,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- respectively, totaling Rs. 6,69,000/- (Rs. 5,85,000/- + Rs.18,000/- + Rs.48,000/- + Rs.18,000/-). 16. It is the main contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that the driver was in an intoxication condition at the time of accident and case was also registered against him under Section 185 of IPC. The Tribunal ignoring the said fact, the Tribunal fixed the liability on the Insurance Company. 17. With regard to contention raised by the Insurance Company that at the time of accident, the driver was not having valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle, which in fact supported by Charge Sheet in Crime No. 72 of 2016 i.e Ex.A5 filed by the Police. Further, to substantiate the said fact, the RW-2 i.e staff of RTA deposed that there is no driving license in the name of the Respondent No.1 and filed Ex.X1 to that effect. Therefore, it is proved that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle having no valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. 18. However, it is to be noted that in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., 3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance 2 2009 ACJ 1298 3 (2004) 3 SCC 297 8 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 cases of breach by the insured, the insurer's liability towards third-party victims does not vanish immediately. 19. In the case on hand, the evidence adduced by the Appellant would substantially prove that the Respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident. However, the Insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. 20. 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 deposit the compensation and then recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle i.e Respondents No. 1 and 2/ Respondent No.4 and 5 herein. 21. With the above direction, this appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.03.2026 KK