1 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. APHC010416882019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 83/2022 Between: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM ...APPELLANT AND 1. SMT ADIDALA JAYALAKSHMI, W/O, RAJA STALIN MANAHOR, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES. RESIDENT OF 30-02-408/3,OFFICIAL COLONY,SALUR, VIJAYANAGARAM DISTRICT 2. ADUDEKA RAJA STANIL MANANOHAR, S/O, RAJA RAO, CHRISTAIN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, REST - DO 3. ADIDALA PRAVEEN RAJU, S/O RAJASTALIN MANOHAR, CHRISTAIN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, REST -CO- 4. KOTTEM MANIKONTA, S/O, SURIBABU HINCLU,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, DRIVER OF CAR, RESIDING AT PITHAPURAM VILLAGE, BOJJAVARI THOTA, D NO 4-3-38,F/2 OF EAST GODAVARI DISRICT 5. SURI BABU KOTTAM, S/O, SOMARAJU HINDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING NO AP 31 WU TR 0955, RESIDING AT D NO 4-3-38,F/2 PITHAPURAM VILLAGE, BOJJAVARI THOTA, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 83/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the 3rd Respondent – Insurance Company i.e., The New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, challenging the Order and Decree dated 04.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.5 of 2018 by the Chairman, MACT –cum- II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, wherein the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.14,42,400/- as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Adidala Rajeev in a motor vehicle accident. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., the appellant herein is referred to as 3rd Respondent, Respondents No.1 to 3 herein are referred to as Claimants and Respondents No.4 and 5 herein are referred to as Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The brief facts of the petition in MVOP No.5 of 2018 are that – 1st petitioner being mother, 2nd petitioner being father, 3rd petitioner being younger brother of Adidala Rajeev (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) filed the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Adidala Rajeev in a motor vehicle accident, together with interest and costs. 4 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. i. On 23.07.2017 at about 12.30 hours when the deceased and his friend Deepu Raju David were coming from Salur to Bobbili on their motor cycle bearing Regn., No.AP35 AC 5093, when they reached near Culvert in between Paradi and Gorli Seetharampuram village, 1st respondent being the driver of car bearing Regn. No.AP31 WU TR 0955, coming from opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, without blowing horn, while crossing the bus which was coming from opposite direction, could not control the car, as a result, the car was turned turtle and touched the deceased forcibly, due to that force hit the deceased A.Rajeev died on the spot, Deepu Raju David received bleeding injury over right leg. On the report given by Deepu Raju David, a case for the offences punishable under sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against 1st respondent. ii. The deceased – A.Rajeev was heal and healthy, aged 28 years, working as Senior Lab Technician, Medall Diagnostics, near LIC Building, Parvathipuram and earning Rs.14,000/- per month as his salary. Petitioners incurred Rs.15,000/- towards transport and funeral expenses. Hence, they claimed Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a from the date of petition, till the date of realization and for costs. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 5 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. 4. The 3rdrespondent – Insurance Company filed written statement denying and disputing the age, income, avocation of the deceased, relationship of petitioners 1 and 2 with the deceased, the manner of accident as alleged in the petition, alleged injuries sustained by the deceased. 3rd respondent further submitted that the accident occurred due to negligent riding of rider of motor cycle i.e., the deceased is pillion rider at the time of alleged accident, but the investigating officer not properly conducted the investigation in the corresponding criminal case and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of Car bearing No.AP31 WU TR 0955. R.3 further submitted that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, the petitioners may claim compensation from the insurer of the motor cycle in which the deceased was rider of motor cycle at the time of accident in a separate proceedings for the same cause of action and in such case it is not tenable under law, the claim of the petitioners under different heads and the interest claimed by them are excessive. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the petition, with costs. 5. Basing on the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed. 1) Whether the accident occurred resulting in death of the deceased Adidala Rajeev, is due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No. AP31 WU TR 0955 by its driver i.e., R.1.? 6 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. 2) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom? 3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of Petitioners, 1st petitioner herself got examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Ex.A.1 – Attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2 – attested copy of post-mortem report of deceased, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of inquest report of deceased, Ex.A.4 – certified copy of M.V.I report, Ex.A.5 – attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.6 – clinical attachment training certificate, Ex.A.7 – certificate of training completion in lab technician, Ex.A.8 – certificate issued by A.P Para Medical Board, Ex.A.9 – Account copy issued by HDFC Bank, Salur, Ex.A.10 – Identity card issued by Medall Health Care, Parvathipuram. To prove the occurrence of accident, alleged injured – viz., Deepu Raju got examined as P.W.2. To prove the employment and income of the deceased, one T.Purna Chandra Sekhar, Branch Manager of Medall Diagnostics, Parvathipuram, got examined as P.W.3. On behalf of contesting 3rdrespondent, one Santosh Padi, Assistant in 3rd Respondent Insurance Company got examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 – copy of insurance policy, Ex.B.2 - temporary certificate of registration issued by RTO, Rajahmundry valid from 31.05.2017 to 29.06.2018. One K.V.N.V.Prasad, Junior Assistant, R.T.A., Kakinada, got examined as R.W.2 and got marked 7 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. Ex.X.1 – authorization letter and Ex.X.2 – temporary registration document i.e., Form No’s.20, 21. 7. Upon hearing both sides, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.14,42,400/- as compensation against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- of the claimants, along with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization, with proportionate costs, directing Respondents No.1 to 3 to deposit the entire compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of Order. 8. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the 3rdRespondent Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds – the Court below has failed to appreciate the law on registration and non-registration of vehicle and consequences of non-registration of vehicle. In the present case specified time for registration of crime car is lapsed, it is clear violation of M.V Rules. While passing the Order, the learned Judge maintained silence on this aspect; that the tribunal fixed the income of the deceased basing on the oral evidence of P.W.3, but there are variations regarding income of the deceased among the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3; that no documentary proof filed in proof of income of the deceased, so, the income of the deceased should be taken under Minimum Wages Act; that the tribunal awarded excessive compensation beyond its power and authority and contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex court and this Court, particularly under the head of Loss of love 8 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. and affection. The Tribunal has not considered the statements/depositions of R.W.2 who is a Junior Assistant in RTA Office, who clearly said about violations of M.V Act and Rules. The Tribunal has given interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a which is contrary to all cannons of law and prayed to allow the appeal. 9. Heard both sides and perused Order passed by the Tribunal. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 11. Point: On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the 1stclaimant, who is mother of the deceased, examined herself as P.W.1 and to prove the manner of accident got examined the eyewitness to the accident by name Deepu Raju as P.W.2 who categorically stated that he drove the motor cycle on the date of accident and he has driving license, thereby it can be safely concluded that he is an eyewitness to the accident. Hence, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 – attested copy of F.I.R., and Ex.P.5 – attested copy of the charge sheet, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1, resulting the death of the deceased, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1 resulting the death of the deceased. 9 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. 12. With regard to the ground of exonerating the 2nd respondent’s liability, at para No.11 of the Order it was stated by the Tribunal that R.W.1 who is Assistant in New India Assurance Company Limited got marked Ex.B.1 – attested copy of Insurance Policy and Ex.B.2 – Xerox copy of temporary registration certificate for Crime Vehicle No. AP31 TR 0955 and in his cross examination he admitted that the deceased is a third party to the policy and the policy covers risk of 3rd party. Further, the Junior Assistant, R.T.A., Kakinada got examined as R.W.2 and in his chief examination he stated that there is no regular registration to the crime vehicle as on the date of accident, that vehicle has to be registered within the stipulated period of one month, if not registered it is a violation. Through R.W.2, Ex.X.1 – authorization letter; and Ex.X.2 Temporary Registration document i.e., Form No’s.20 and 21 got marked. In his cross examination R.W.2 categorically deposed that he cannot say when the crime vehicle was registered as per his record and that it is not violation with regard to the insurance but it is violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules. As per admissions made, by R.W.1 that the insurance policy covers the 3rd party rick and as admitted by R.W.2 that he cannot say when the crime vehicle was registered as per his records and that it is not violation with regard to the insurance, the Tribunal rightly fixed the liability upon Respondents No.1 to 3 directing them to pay compensation amount to the Petitioners/claimants. 10 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. 13. With regard to income of the deceased, the deceased had completed Lab Technician Course as per Ex.A.6 to Ex.A.8. As per Ex.A.10 – identity card issued by Medall Health Care, Parvathipuram, the deceased was working in their institution. P.W.2 who is eyewitness and injured person in the accident stated that the deceased was working as Senior Lab Technician in Medall Diagnostics, thereby getting Rs.14,000/- per month as salary, but, P.W.3 in whose branch the deceased was working as Lab Technician categorically stated that the deceased is a daily worker in their diagnostics and if he attend the work, he will get Rs.200/- per day. Hence the Tribunal considered the income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and it comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum. As there are three (03) dependents depending upon the deceased, as per "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation"1 case, after deducting 1/3rd income towards personal living expenses of the deceased, net income comes to (Rs.72,000 – 1/3 i.e., 24,000/- = ) Rs.48,000/- per annum. As the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier “17’’ is applicable. As the age of the deceased is 28 years as on the date of the accident, claimants are entitled for an additional amount of 40% of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in "National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi"2. If it is calculated, it would come to (Rs.48,000 x 40% (19,200) = 67,200 x 17 =) Rs.11,42,400/-. So, an amount of Rs.11,42,400/- 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 2018 ACJ 2782 11 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. is awarded towards loss of dependency to the petitioners due to the death of the deceased. 14. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, and Rs.40,000/- each to the petitioners i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.14,42,400/- as compensation to the claimants. 15. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.14,42,400/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, for the death of the deceased, was reasonable and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 31.01.2026. 12 MACMA NO. 83 / 2022 VS,J. 191 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 72/2022 DATED 31.01.2026 KS