1 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. APHC010453892023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 564/2023 Between: 1. M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PEYYELA PREMALEELA, W/O. TATA RAO, HINDU, 40 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D. NO. 14-188, TRILOCHANAPURAM. MULAPADU VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. PEYYELA TATA RAO, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, HINDU, 48 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 14-188, TRILPCHANAPURAM, MULAPADU VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. PEYYELA SANDHYA RANI, D/O. LATE TATA RAO, HINDU. 28 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 14-188, TRILOCHANAPURAM, MULAPADU VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. NARDU PEDA GOPAIAH, S/O. SAMBAIAH, HINDU, 24 YEARS, OWNER CUM DRIVER OF MOTORCYCLE, R/O. VELLANKI VILLAGE, VEERULAPDU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ailaurapu yellamandaiah The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 564/2023 J U D G M E N T: 1. The appellant/ 2nd Respondent i.e., The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, M.G Road, Vijayawada, has preferred this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) by challenging the Order and Decree dated 13.04.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.246 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada for awarding Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners towards compensation as claimed by them. 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 herein as 2nd Respondent; Respondents No.1 to 3 herein as Petitioners and Respondent No.4 herein as 1st respondent. 2. 1st petitioner is mother, 2nd petitioner is father and 3rd petitioner is sister of the deceased. During pendency of case, 2nd petitioner died and that the daughter of petitioners 1 & 2 is impleaded as 3rd petitioner as per order dated 07.10.2022 in I.A.No.39/2022. 1st respondent is owner cum driver, 2nd respondent is insurance company of crime motorcycle bearing No.AP16 CR 2493. 4 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. The Petitioners filed claim petition under Sections 140 & 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and award Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability, and for petition costs, for the death of Peyyela Satish (hereinafter referred to as the „deceased‟) in a motor vehicle accident on 12.01.2015. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition are that: The deceased Peyyala Satish Babu was unmarried, as on the date of accident he was working as Security In-charge in Energy Batteries Company at Narasimharaopalem village of Veerulapadu Mandal and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. i. On 12.01.2015 while Peyyala Satish Babu being the rider and his friend / co-employee Balasani Santhosh being pillion rider of motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP16 CE 6780 reached the outskirts of Narasimharaopalem village at about 08.15 hours. At that time, the 1st respondent being the rider cum owner of motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP16 CR 2493 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, without blowing horn and dashed the deceased motor cycle, resulting which both the deceased and his friend/pillion rider fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries, and they were shifted to Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada and the deceased was succumbed 5 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. to the injuries on 20.01.2015 at about 0.10 hours while undergoing treatment in that hospital. ii. This incident was registered as Cr.No.05/2015 for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC against 1st respondent in Veerulapadu police station and on receipt of death intimation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Veerulpadu police station, altered the section of law from section 338 of IPC to section 304A of IPC, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against 1st Respondent. iii. The Deceased was having Degree in Bachelor of Commerce (computers). The deceased is the only son of petitioners 1 & 2 and 3rd petitioner is daughter of petitioners 1 & 2 who is married woman. The petitioners herein suffered severe mental agony and lost their only source of income. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter by denying the material allegations of the petition and contended that there is no negligence on the part of this respondent at the time of accident and petitioners intentionally added this respondent as there is no fault on him. Moreover, the 1st respondent was acquitted in CC.No.78/2016 registered by the Police, as such, it is crystal clear that there is no negligence on the part of this respondent and accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of petitioners only and prayed to dismiss the petition, with costs. Thereafter, the 1st respondent was set ex-parte on 10.03.2022 & 28.03.2023. 6 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. 5. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed counter denying the material allegations of the petition and contended that the 1st respondent is absolutely responsible for causing the death of deceased in the above accident due to his rash and negligent act. The alleged accident occurred due to self- negligence of the deceased who is rider of motorcycle and he is not holding driving license and insurance policy to his motorcycle bearing No.AP16 CE 6780. The driver cum owner (1st respondent) of crime motor cycle bearing No.AP16 CR 2493 has no driving license and it clearly mentioned by the Motor Vehicle Inspector that the 1st respondent/ accused driving license not made available and in charge-sheet it is noted that the accused is liable for punishment under sections 304A, 337 of IPC and Sections 180, 181, 196, 192(i) of Motor Vehicles Act as he rode motor cycle No.AP16 CR 2493 and dashed the motor cycle of deceased who is coming in opposite direction and as a result of which the deceased and pillion rider were sustained injuries and thereby caused the death of deceased. The claim of petitioners is excessive, exorbitant and baseless and they are not entitled to claim interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount and the 1st respondent is solely responsible for payment of entire compensation to the petitioners and prayed to dismiss this petition, with exemplary costs. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for trial: 7 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. 1) Whether Mr.Peyyela Satish Babu, son of Tata Rao died due to motor vehicle accident occurred on 12.01.2015 at about 08.15 hours at Jagannadhapuram village, Veerulapadu Mandal, Krishna District? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for and if so, from whom and to what amount? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry, 1st petitioner got examined as PW1 and co-employee of deceased got examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 - Attested copy of FIR dated 13.01.2015; Ex.A2 - Attested copy of altered FIR dated 20.01.2015; Ex.A3 - Attested copy of postmortem report dated 20.01.2015; Ex.A4 - Attested copy of inquest report dated 20.01.2015; Ex.A5 - Attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report dated 05.02.2015; Ex.A6 - Attested copy of charge-sheet dated 30.03.2015; Ex.A7 - Death certificate of deceased P.Satish Babu; Ex.A8 - Attested copy of insurance policy copy of crime vehicle; and Ex.A9 - Copy of pay slip of the deceased for the month of December, 2014. On behalf of 2nd respondent, its Assistant Manager got examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 - Authorized letter of R.2; Ex.B2 - Letter to the insurer to N.Peda Gopaiah; Ex.B3 - Oriental insurance policy for vehicle bearing No.AP16 UYT 3765; Ex.B4 - Authorization letter issued by In-charge Deputy Manager and Ex.B.5 - Office copy of legal notice issued to 1st respondent. 8 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for Petitioners as well as Respondents, the Tribunal awarded compensation amount of Rs.11,35,400/- but restricted the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioners, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, directing respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to deposit the compensation amount within one (1) month from the date of Order, however 2nd respondent is directed to recover the same from 1st respondent. 9. 9. Being aggrieved by the said Order and decree the appellant being 2nd respondent insurance company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to see that there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of owner cum rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP16 CR 2493 and the accident occurred purely due to rash and negligence and fault of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No. AP16 CE 6780 i.e., deceased himself; that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of motor cycle of the deceased; that the deceased has no valid and effective driving license to ride the motor cycle at the time of accident; that the tribunal erred in awarding Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads without any basis and in awarding interest at 7.5% p.a instead of 6% p.a., as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and in directing the 2nd respondent to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners and recover it from 1st respondent. Hence, prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 13.04.2023 in 9 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. M.V.O.P.No.246 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- VIII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada. 10. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant as well as Respondents and perused the material on record. 11. Now the point for determination is: Whether the Order/award passed by the tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: On perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that considering the evidence of R.W.1 that the 1st respondent who was rider cum owner of the motor cycle was not having any valid driving license and also by relying upon B-register extract, and the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex court in Shamanna vs The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and others, (2018) 9 SCC 650, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that-“if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of “pay and recover” can be ordered to direct the insurance company to pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle” and accordingly passed the award directing the insurance company to pay and then recover from the owner of the vehicle i.e., Respondent No.1. The Tribunal has directed the insurance company to deposit compensation initially and then recover the same from the owner-cum-driver of 10 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. the vehicle, which in the opinion of this Court is well reasoned and needs no interference. 13. P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was working as Security Guard at Enegery Battery Company and earning Rs.10,000/- as on the date of the accident and in support of her evidence, she got marked Ex.A.9 – pay slip of the deceased issued by G4S Secure Solutions India Private Limited stating that the last drawn salary of deceased was Rs.7,375/-. But, as P.W.1 failed to examine the employer of the deceased or any of the persons of his organization in support of Ex.A.9, the Tribunal estimated the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.7,000/- per month. 14. As the age of the deceased is 24 years as on the date of the accident, he is 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 Sethi1”, as such the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,800/- (Rs.7000 + 40/100). As the deceased is a bachelor on the date of the accident, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 50%, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.4,900/- (Rs.9,800 – Rs.4,900). Accordingly, annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.58,800/- (Rs.4,900 X 12). After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e.18 for 1 2018 ACJ 2782 11 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. the age group of 24 years, as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2”, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.58,800 X 18 ) Rs.10,58,400/-. 15. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.44,000/- towards filial consortium. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for Rs.11,35,400/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. However, as the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal restricted the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/-, which in the opinion of this Court is well reasoned and sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 16. Accordingly, Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 23.02.2026. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 12 MACMA NO. 564 of 2023 VS,J. 270 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 564/2023 DATED 23.02.2026 KS