APHC010475962021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 575/2021 Between: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, E 8, EPIP INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE. HOLDING ITS OFFICE AT VIJAYAWADA REP, BY ITS MANAGER. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK SHAFIULLAH, S/O. S.MOHAMMAD HANEEF, MUSLIM, AGED 40 YEARS, TAXI DRIVER,H.NO. 38, BLOCK NO.17, RAJEEV GRUHAKALPA, NEAR DALL MILLS, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA ROAD, KURNOOL. 2. MADINA, D/O. SHAFIULLA, AGED 13 YEARS, MINOR,H.NO. 38, BLOCK NO.17, RAJEEV GRUHAKALPA, NEAR DALL MILLS, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA ROAD, KURNOOL. 3. SANA, D/O. SHAIK SHAFIULLAH, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR,.H.NO. 38, BLOCK NO.17, RAJEEV GRUHAKALPA, NEAR DALL MILLS, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA ROAD, KURNOOL. PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE DECLARED AS MAJORS AND 1ST PETITIONER (FATHER) IS DISCHARGED AS THEIR GUARDIAN VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 15/6/2023 IN IA NO.3/2022 4. ABDUL HAFEEZ, S/O. SHAIK SHAFIULLAH, AGED 7 YRS, MINOR, (NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER 1ST PETITIONER) H.NO. 38, BLOCK NO.17, RAJEEV GRUHAKALPA, NEAR DALL MILLS, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA ROAD, KURNOOL. 2 5. B RAJASEKHAR, S/O. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HINDU, MAJOR, H.N0.45/142-A7-8, V R COLONY, KURNOOL. 6. SHAIK RASOOL, S/O. S. KHADER MIAH, MUSLIM, AGED 55 YEARS, H.NO. 9, BLOCK NO.16, RAJEEV GRUHAKALPA, NEAR DALL MILLS, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA ROAD,. KURNOOL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toappellant begs to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Honourable High Court being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 01-09-2020 passed in Mvop no. 471 / 2015 on the file of Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay the execution of decree and judgment dated 01-09- 2020 passed in Mvop no. 471 / 2015 on the file of Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Court, Kurnool pending disposal of Appeal and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Vacate the interim Stay granted in I.A. 1 of 2021 in M.A.C.MA.ANO. 575 of 2021,dated 7-12-2021 and pass such other order or orders as this IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to permit the petitioner 2 and 3 herein to withdraw the amount deposited by the 1st respondent herein MV.OP.No. 471/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Court Kurnool as per orders passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in MACMA.NO. 575/2021 dated 7-12-2021 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2022 3 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to declare the petitioners 2 and 3 herein namely Madina D/o Shaik Shafiullh and Sane D/o Sahik Sahfiullah as majors by discharging the father of the petitioners from the guardianship in MACMA No. 575/2021 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the petitionerNo.4 to withduw the amount deposited by the 1st respondent herein in MV.OP.No. 575 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool as per the order dated 7-12-2021 passed in I.A.No 1 of 2021 in MACMA.No. 575 of 2021 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to declare petitioner No.4 herein namely Abdul Hafeez S/o Shaik Shafiulla as major by discharging the father of the petitioner from the guardiansnip in the MACMA No. 575/2021 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B S VENKATA RAMESH 4 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by Shriram General Insurance Company limited, aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.471 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Court, Kurnool. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of death of one Shaik Sahmeem (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’), the wife of the 1st petitioner and mother of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, in the accident that was occurred on 02.02.2013, in which the offending Tata Ace Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.AP 21 X 3108 was involved. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased left the home along with her husband on a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 21 AN 7305 for paying milk bill. When they reached Lord Anjaneya Swamy Temple, the offending vehicle came in wrong route at high speed with rash and negligent manner driven by the driver of the offending vehicle. In order to avoid collision with the offending vehicle, the 1st petitioner turned the motor cycle, due to which, the deceased fell down on the road, as a result of which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on her forehead, right temple and contusion injuries behind the head. Immediately, she was taken to the Government 5 General Hospital, Kurnool, for treatment and while undergoing treatment, she died on the same day at 09:00 p.m. A case in Crime.No.39 of 2013 was registered on the file of the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Kurnool, under Section 304-A IPC against the 3rd respondent/ driver of the offending vehicle. 5. It was the further case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged 30 years, she was hale and healthy, doing milk business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On account of her death, the petitioners have lost the financial support and in view of the same, they approached the Tribunal by filing the claim petition. It was their specific case that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent/ driver and as the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent, the owner, insurer and the driver are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent resisted the claim of the petitioners by filing counter-affidavit inter-alia denying the contentions raised in the claim petition. It was the specific case of the 2nd respondent that the alleged offending vehicle was never involved in the accident. 7. It was further contended that in order to fix the liability as against the 2nd respondent, the respondent Nos.1 and 3 colluded for wrongful gain. 6 8. It was further stated that as the vehicle was not involved in the accident and the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioners. 9. With the above pleadings, 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 10. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. 11. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent has examined R.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Ex.B1 and Ex.X1. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by order under challenge, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.12,64,000/-, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants. 13. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondent Nos.5 and 6. 14. Perused the record. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent would strenuously contend that even going by the averments made in the claim petition, it is succinctly clear that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, inasmuch as, the 1st petitioner, in order to avoid collision with the offending 7 vehicle, turned the motor cycle, due to which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. 16. He would further submit that in view of the non-involvement of the offending vehicle, the question of payment of compensation by the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company does not arise. In order to prove the same, he would rely on the contents of the claim petition. 17. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that, it is nobody’s case that there was a collision between the motor cycle of the 1st petitioner and the offending Tata Ace vehicle. 18. It was the specific case of the petitioners that in order to avoid collision, the motor cycle was suddenly turned and thereby, the deceased fell down on the road. 19. A perusal of the record goes to show that the 3rd respondent was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and furthermore, he was coming in the wrong route. In this regard, a crime was registered in Cr.No.39 of 2013, on the file of the IV Town Police Station, Kurnool, against the 3rd respondent/ driver. The said crime was later investigated into and charge sheet was filed against the 3rd respondent. Copies of FIR and charge sheet were filed before the Tribunal and the same were marked as Exs.A1 and A3. 20. A perusal of the contents of the FIR and the charge sheet, it is clear that the offending vehicle was proceeding in wrong route. Apart from the same, it 8 is pertinent to note that one Sri G. Peddaiah Naidu, the police officer was examined as R.W.3 by the Insurance Company. 21. A perusal of the evidence of the R.W.3, it is clear that the 3rd respondent/ driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and was proceeding in wrong route. Further, he deposed that the crime was investigated into and charge sheet was also filed to that effect by his predecessor. From the foregoing evidence placed before the Tribunal coupled with the Exs.A1 and A3, it can be safely held that the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later died in view of the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent/ driver of the offending vehicle. Apart from the same, he was proceeding in wrong route. In that view of the matter, it can be held that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 3rd respondent and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent, in this regard cannot be accepted. 22. It was further contended by the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive and nothing is placed on record to prove the income of the deceased. 23. The Tribunal, after following the various Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- and computed the compensation under various heads and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.12,64,000/-, together with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 9 24. The learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent would submit that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the 1st petitioner has categorically averred in the claim petition and he also deposed that the deceased was doing milk business and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal did not take into consideration of the same, in view of the fact that no documentary evidence was placed before it. As there was no specific evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal by placing reliance on the evidence of the P.W.1, had fixed the income of the husband of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, and fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. The said exercise was undertaken by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 22 July, 2010 in Civil Appeal No.5843 of 20101. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention, inasmuch as, the Tribunal having followed the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, had awarded the compensation. Further, though the claim was made for Rs.10,00,000/, it is always open for the Tribunal/ court to award Just compensation to the 1 2010 AIR SCW 5335 10 deceased/ victim, inasmuch as, the same is being awarded under beneficial legislation and the courts are duty bound to award Just compensation. 25. In the circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Just and reasonable, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the order under challenge does not require interference by this Court and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.23.03.2026 SCH 11 132 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.575 OF 2021 Date: 23.03.2026 SCH