APHC010364842022 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. SHAIK SHABUDDIN, S/O.SIDDIQUE SHARIFF, MUSLIM, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O.LST LANE, AKULAVARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. KONDISETTY KARTHIK, S/O.KOTESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O.DR.NO.4 MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 1. PEYYALAMITTA VENKATA SIVA KUMARI, W/O.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HINDU, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O.NIDUMUKKALA VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. PEYYALAMITTA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O.BHA @ RAMA KOTAIAH, HINDU, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O.NIDUMUKKALA VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. HABIBULLA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. JAYA PRAKASH MADASU 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: 268 SHAIK SHABUDDIN, S/O.SIDDIQUE SHARIFF, MUSLIM, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O.LST LANE, AKULAVARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR KONDISETTY KARTHIK, S/O.KOTESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O.DR.NO.4-294, NALLAPADU VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND PEYYALAMITTA VENKATA SIVA KUMARI, W/O.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HINDU, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O.NIDUMUKKALA VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PEYYALAMITTA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O.BHA @ RAMA KOTAIAH, HINDU, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O.NIDUMUKKALA VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): HABIBULLA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): JAYA PRAKASH MADASU IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA APPEAL NO: 268 OF 2022 SHAIK SHABUDDIN, S/O.SIDDIQUE SHARIFF, MUSLIM, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O.LST LANE, AKULAVARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR KONDISETTY KARTHIK, S/O.KOTESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 34 GUNTUR RURAL ...APPELLANT(S) PEYYALAMITTA VENKATA SIVA KUMARI, W/O.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HINDU, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O.NIDUMUKKALA VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PEYYALAMITTA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O.BHANU MURTHY @ RAMA KOTAIAH, HINDU, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O.NIDUMUKKALA VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following Judgment : The Appellants/ Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 09.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.833 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.7,91,000/- as against the claim of Rs.15,50,000/-, on account of the death of Peyyalamitta Bhaskara Rao (for brevity ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident that occurred on 16.09.2016. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: The Petitioners are the mother and father of the deceased Peyyalamitta Bhaskara Rao, who is working in Chandra Textiles Private Limited, Ponnekallu as a worker in the Spinning Department and he used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month and he was doing over time duties also. On 16.09.2016 at about 7.30 p.m after the duty hours, the deceased was travelling to his house by his Honda motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 CB 8582 in normal speed. The Respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle AP 07 TU 5582, Tata (ACE) Mini van, of which Respondent No.1 is the driver. The Respondent No.2 vehicle was carrying on liquor load, containing of King Fisher and other items and the vehicle was stopped almost on the bitumen road to a general lane, abutting the gravel road. There is no indication of the stoppage of the vehicle, either by 3 danger lights or other side lights and it was dark and the deceased vehicle is having centre light and as there is no indication, the vehicle of Respondent No.2, which was stopped by Respondent No.1 for the best reasons known to him, in a negligent and careless manner, the motor bike that is being run by the deceased met with head on collusion and thereby the deceased succumbed injuries. The Police registered case in Crime No. 143 of 2016 of Tadikonda Police Station. 4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 and 2 filed their written statements, stating that there is no negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1 and he is having valid driving license. The claim of the Petitioners of Rs. 15,50,000/- are highly excessive and arbitrary. It is further submitted that at the time of accident the deceased was going on two wheeler with high speed in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and without following traffic rules and regulations and hit the vehicle of this Respondents, which was stationed on the left side of the road margin. As such, the deceased himself is responsible for his negligent act and the Respondents are not responsible and not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether Peyyalamitta Bhaskara Rao died in the road accident occurred on 16.9.2016 near Hazarat Baba Dargah, Nidumukkala Village, Tadikonda Mandal, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Tata ACE bearing No. AP 07 TU 5582? 4 2. Whether the petitioners is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 6. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 7. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.7,91,000/- 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.1 and 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the order. 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondents No. 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of crime vehicle preferred this Appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- without any valid documentary proof and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants/ Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 11. The instant Appeal has been preferred by the Respondents No. 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that though there is no eye witness to the incident, they were made jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount. 12. The learned counsel for the Appellants contends that at the time of accident the deceased was going on two wheeler with high speed in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and without following traffic rules and regulations and hit the vehicle of the Respondent No.2, which was stationed on the left side of the road margin and as such, the deceased himself is responsible for his negligence act and that the Appellants are not responsible and not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 13. The Tribunal relying upon oral evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. PW-1, who is father of the deceased; PW-2 who is an eye witness to the said accident has categorically deposed that on the fateful day, while he was ploughing the land with Tractor and therafter he was going to his house at about 7.30 p.m and he heard some sound on the State High Way, which is very nearer to his land and found that standing TATA ACE van loaded with Brandy and other liquor and motorcycle dashed it. He went to accident spot and found the deceased sustained injuries. The said mini van was stopped on the road and tyre of it was punctured. The deceased was died because of said accident. 6 PW-3 who is a person has lodged a report before the Police about the accident. Even according to him, the deceased died on 16.09.2016 at about 7.30 p.m. 14. Considering the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, coupled with Ex.A1 to A16 as well as Ex.B1 and B2 Photographs would show that no parking signals or indication of the car appeared as exhibited by RW-3 and 5, the Tribunal held that in the absence of any evidence to disprove the case of the claimants the issue No.1 was answered holding that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of Respondent No.2, who drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of the deceased. As such, the Tribunal held that the Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident, but as per Ex.A1 to A3, the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 25.06.1996 i.e 30 years old. Though, the Respondents have challenged the same, but they did not placed any documentary evidence to support their contention nor they had elicited out anything in contrary to the case of the Petitioners. As such, the age of the deceased was determined as 26 years as on the date of accident. 16. As per evidence of PW-1, the deceased was doing over time duties in spinning department in Sri Ravi Chandra Textiles Private Limited, Ponnekallu and getting Rs.10,000/- per month, but no document was adduced to 7 substantiate the claim of the claimants. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month. As the deceased was self-employed, 50% of his income i.e., Rs.2,500/- was deducted towards personal expenses, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1, thereby his annual income was calculated as Rs.42,000/- (Rs.5,000/- on 50%= Rs. 2,500/- + 40% = Rs. 3,500/-). After deducting 50% of his income towards his personal expenditure and applying the relevant multiplier of ‘17’, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 , the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of dependency assessed as Rs. 7,14,000/- (Rs. 42,000/- x 17), which is reasonable and not on higher side. 17. The Tribunal also awarded compensation under conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses is assessed as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. Therefore, the Claimants are entitled to claim total compensation of Rs. 7,91,000/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. 18. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the Claimants and as well as exhibits relied on by them has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the Claimant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 7,91,000/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 8 higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the Claimant. 19. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 10.02.2026 KK