1 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. APHC010448782021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 558/2021 Between: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, R/O GUTTIKONDA ZOOM PLAZA, NEAR VINAYAK THEATRE, RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 10 ...APPELLANT AND 1. SYED MAGBUL ALIAS SD MABUL, W/O SYED RIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MUSLIM 2. SK RIZWANA, W/O ABDUL RAHIM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, MUSLIM (RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT KHAZA NAGAR, BUCHIREDDYPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R DISTRICT) 3. ALURU LALITHAMMA, W/O SUBRAHMANYAM, HINDU, AGED NOT KNWON, OWNER OF THE AUTO BEARING REGISTRATION NO.AP-26- TT-2766, RESIDING AT YELLAYAPALEM, KODAVALURU MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT 4. ALURU SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O AUDAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE AUTO BEARING REGISTRATION NO.AP-26- TT-2766, RESIDING AT YELLAYAPALEM, KODAVALURU MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT 5. SK AAMINA, W/O AFZAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, MUSLIM, RESING AT SANTHI NAGAR, BUCHIREDDYPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 558/2021 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellant – 2nd respondent insurance company i.e., The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Vijayawada being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 12.04.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.328 of 2018 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- Principal District Judge, Nellore, awarding Rs.3,89,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellant as 2nd Respondent and Respondents No.1 and 2 as Petitioners, Respondents No.3 to 5 as Respondents No.1, 3 and 4. 2. The claim petitioners being wife and daughter, filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization and for costs, for the death of Syed Riyaz alias Shaik Riyaz in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.11.2009. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.328 of 2018 are that:- The deceased Shaik Riyaz was quite hale and healthy prior to the accident 4 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. and he was aged about 50 years, earning Rs.500/- per day and contributing the same to the family maintenance. On 02.11.2009 at about 21.30 hours, when the deceased was crossing Kovur road after observing due signals and traffic, at that time, one auto bearing No.AP-26-TT-2766 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, while proceeding towards Nellore, came and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and received head injury and other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to DSR Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore, through 108 ambulance for treatment.While undergoing treatment, he was succumbed to fatal injuries at about 6.00 Hours on 03.11.2009.After postmortem examination, dead body was shifted to his village in a taxi by spending Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners who are depending upon the earnings of deceased lost their protector, elder, and earning member of the family, the petitioners are suffering both mentally and financially. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP-26-TT-2766, the 3rd respondent being its driver, and 1strespondent being its owner, and 2nd respondent being its insurance company, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. 5 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. 4. 2nd Respondent filed counter denying the petition averments and contended that as per report, unknown Auto driver caused the accident, but, the owner and driver of auto bearing No.AP-26-TT-2766 colluded with the petitioners and with the help of police, falsely implicated the said vehicle as it is involved in the accident, for wrongful gain. It is clear that the above auto never involved in the accident. Hence, the insurance company is not proper and necessary party. The accident relates to the year 2009 and Petition is filed after lapse of 9 years and petitioners failed to explain the reason for abnormal delay of 9 years, in filing the petition. The matter of accident is not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioners, with a view to cause loss to 2nd respondent and as such, 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and the policy number mentioned in the claim application does not tally with the series of policies issued by 2nd respondent company. 2nd respondent does not admit that the petitioners are only legal heirs on death of deceased. 3rd respondent was not having valid driving license. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. 3rd respondent filed counter denying the petition averments and further contended that 3rd respondent possessed valid and effective driving license. Liability of 1st respondent has to be indemnified by 2nd respondent, as the vehicle was validly insured with 2nd respondent. The accident was occurred due 6 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. to the negligence of the deceased only. Compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 6. Counter filed by 3rd respondent was adopted by 1st respondent by filing adoption memo. 7. 4th respondent remained ex-parte. 8. Basing on the above averments, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal - 1) Whether the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the auto by the 3rd respondent? 2) Whether the Petitioners and the 4th respondent are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 9. On behalf of petitioners, 1st petitioner by name Smt. Sayed Magbul alias Sd. Mabul got examined as P.W.1 and an eyewitness to the accident by name Sri Shaik Rahiman got examined as P.W.2 and also got marked – Ex.A.1 - attested photocopy of F.I.R in Crime No.184 of 2009 of Kovur Police Station, Ex.A2 – attested photocopy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 – attested photocopy of Postmortem examination certificate, Ex.A.4 – attested photocopy of charge sheet on the file of Additional Judicial magistrate of I Class, Kovur, Ex.A.5 - Original Aadhar card of 1st claimant, Ex.A.6 – attested photocopy of income-tax returns. 7 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. On behalf of 2nd respondent, Sri Ch. Krishna Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kovur Police Station got examined as R.W.1 and got marked attested photocopy of M.V.I report as Ex.X.1, and one Sri S.Siva Kumar, Administrative Officer of 2nd respondent - insurance company got examined as R.W.2 and got marked Ex.B.1 – Office copy of legal notice issued by 2nd respondent to Respondents No.1 and 3, Ex.B.3 – acknowledgment of 1st respondent and Ex.B.4 – acknowledgment of 3rd respondent. 10. After hearing and considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both parties, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,89,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit, with proportionate costs, directing Respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to deposit the compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of order. After such deposit, 2nd respondent is permitted to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 3. 11. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the 2nd respondent - insurance company (appellant herein) has preferred this appeal on the following grounds – The Tribunal erred in allowing the petition against the appellant along with 4th and 5th respondents herein, to pay the entire compensation to the petitioners and failed to consider the documentary and oral evidence adduced by 2nd respondent and came to a conclusion that appellant is also liable to pay 8 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. compensation, awarded to the claimants. As the driver drove the vehicle without possessing driving license, Respondents 1 and 3 alone are liable to pay compensation and the compensation awarded is too high. Hence, prayed to set aside the order and judgment dated 12.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.328 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- Principal District Judge, Nellore, against 2nd respondent. 12. Heard the learned Counsel for Appellant and Respondents No.1 & 2. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 14. POINT: On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the 1stclaimant, who is the wife of the deceased, got examined herself as P.W.1 and to prove the manner of accident got examined P.W.2, who is an eyewitness to the said accident, categorically deposed that on 02.11.2009 at about 09.30, while the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle towards Inamadugu Centre and crossing the road and proceeding on the road side margin, at Inamadugu centre, at that time, the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 26TT 2766 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while proceeding towards Nellore side, came and hit the deceased, as a result of which, he fell down on the road, and sustained severe bleeding injuries. Immediately, he and one Basha shifted the deceased to the Government 9 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. Hospital, Nellore, through 108 Ambulance for treatment. Later, he came to know that on 03.11.2009 while undergoing treatment he died. Hence, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 Attested photocopy of FIR in Cr.No.184 of 2009 of Kovur Police Station, Ex.A.4 – Attested photocopy of the charge sheet on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovur, which shows that after due investigation, it was established that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3, resulting the death of the deceased, the Tribunal safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.3 resulting the death of the deceased. 15. The Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the ground that as the driver of the crime vehicle was not possessing any driving license, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay any compensation as there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. On a perusal of the impugned order/award, it can be observed that R.W.1 admitted that the 1st Respondent’s Auto was insured with 2nd respondent under Ex.B.1 and Ex.B1 - policy was valid for the period from 19.09.2009 to 18.09.2010. Ex.X.1 – M.V.I report clearly reveals that 3rd respondent was not having valid driving license. 2nd respondent got issued registered notice under Ex.B.2 to respondents No.1 and 3 to cause production of driving license of 3rd respondent. Having received said notice under Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.4 / postal acknowledgments, Respondents No.1 and 3 did not issue driving license extract of 3rd respondent. The evidence of 10 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. R.W.1 coupled with Ex.X.1 – attested photo copy of M.V.I report reveals that 3rd respondent was not having driving license and even after issuance of notice by 2nd respondent, respondents No.1 and 3 did not produce driving license extract of 3rd respondent, thereby adverse inference was drawn by the Tribunal by holding that the 3rd respondent was not having valid and effective driving license to drive crime vehicle, as on the date of accident, and thereby 2nd respondent established that 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Even otherwise, the Tribunal held that, assuming that the terms and conditions of policy are violated, such a breach cannot be treated as a fundamental breach so as to absolve the insurer of its statutory liability towards third parties. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments held that if there is any violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, the insurance company shall first deposit the compensation amount to the petitioner(s) and then, recover it from its owner and/or driver. In view of the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as discussed above, the Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay and then recover from the owner and/or driver, which is in the opinion of this court is well reasoned and needs no interference. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Though P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was electrician and was earning Rs.500/- per day, in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. 11 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.3,000 X 12). As there are 3 dependents (petitioners and 4th respondent) in the present case, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/3rd, the monthly income of the deceased would come to (Rs.3,000 – Rs.1,000 =) Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, annual income would come to (Rs.2,000 x 12 = ) Rs.24,000/-. 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 Corporation1”, the loss of dependency would come to (24,000 x 13 =) Rs.3,12,000/-. 17. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, and. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.3,89,000/- to the claimants, which in the opinion of this Court is well considered and needs o interference. 18. Accordingly, Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 09.02.2026. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 12 MACMA NO. 558 / 2021 VS,J. 215 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 558/2021 DATED 09.02.2026 KS