4APHC010494122022 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: 371/2022 Between: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ANANTHAPURAMU ...APPELLANT AND 1. S K MOHAMMED LQBAL, 5/O.S.K.FAKRUDDIN SAB, 62 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.7/1056-C, NEAR NOORANI MOSQUE, GOOTY TOWN 2. S K THAHEROON BEGUM, W/O. S.K.MOHAMMED IQBAL, 57 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.7/1056-C, NEAR NOORANI MOSQUE, GOOTY TOWN (1 AND 2 ARE PETITIONERS IN M.V.O.P) 3. T HANUMESHRAO, S/O. T.JANBAIAH, 44 YEARS, RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.AP-02-BA-8223, R/O. 1/15-A, O.C. COLONY, GUNDALA VILLAGE, GUNTAKAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. K KIRAN KUMAR REDDY, S/O K.YARRAPPA REDDY, OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE AP-02-BA-8223, R/O. O.C.COLONY, AYYAVARIPALLI VILLAGE, GUNTAKAL MANDAL (R3 AND R4 ARE 1 AND 2 RESPONDENTS IN M.V.O.P) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to The appellant herein submits the memorandum of appeal against the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.28/2017 dated 11-03-2022 on the 2 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.371 of 2022 file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, 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 to condone the delay of 55 days in presenting the appeal, and pass 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 to stay of all further proceedings, passed in M.V.O.P. no. 28/2017, dt. 11-03- 2022, on the file of the M.A.C.T. cum VI A.D.J, Gooty, IA NO: 3 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 to vacate the interim order dated 22-09-2022 in I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in MACMA No.371 of 2022 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M KARIBASAIAH The Court made the following: 3 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.371 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree 11.03.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.28 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Gooty whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.22,97,152/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Two only) to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, the 1st petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.12,97,152/- and the 2nd petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as against the claim on account of the death of the deceased Shaik Niyaz Ahemed in a motor accident that occurred on 20.11.2016. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 and 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: On 20.11.2016 at about 03.45 PM the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle towards Ananthapuram from Gooty. While the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle very slowly and on the extreme left side of the road margin and when the deceased reached near Relax Water Plant, Gooty, the respondent No.1, who is the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP-02- BA-8223 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control 4 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.371 of 2022 over the same and dashed against the motor cycle in which the deceased was proceeding. The accident was occurred only due to sole rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent, the deceased received grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, for treatment and he succumbed to injuries. Seeking compensation of Rs.22,72,152/- for the death of the deceased in the said accident, the petitioners, who are the mother and the father of the deceased, filed the claim petition against the owner and rider of the crime vehicle. 04. Before the Tribunal, the respondents 1 & 2 rider and owner of the crime vehicle were remained ex parte. 05. The 3nd respondent, having denied that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle i.e., the deceased. The alleged accident took place due to negligence on the part of the deceased only who ride the motor cycle bearing No.KA-32-X-9001 in a rash and negligent manner. The alleged crime vehicle, was not covered with valid RC, Fitness and permit and was used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. The driver of crime vehicle, had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and on that ground the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The amount claimed by the claimants, is highly excessive and hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 06. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 5 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.371 of 2022 “1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident occurred on 20.11.2016 at about 03.45 PM near Relax Water Plant, Gooty? If so said accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-02-BA-8223 by its rider as pleaded by the petitioners? 2. Whether the driver of said motor cycle had no driving license at the time of accident as alleged by 3rd respondent? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief?” 07. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.C1 to C4 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, none were examined and no documents were marked. 08. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed partly and awarding compensation of Rs.22,97,152/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization and directed respondents No.1 to 3 to deposit the said amount of compensation within three months from the date of the award. The compensation awarded was proportioned between the petitioners and they were given liberty to withdraw certain amount each and the balance amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. 09. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-02-BA-8223 was not having valid driving license at the time of accident 6 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.371 of 2022 and ought to have exonerated the insurance company from its liability. The driver and owner of motor cycle bearing No. AP-02-BA-8223 which the deceased was driving are the proper and necessary parties, hence non- joinder of necessary parties was also questioned. The quantum of compensation and rate of interest awarded to the petitioners was also questioned on the ground that it is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. 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. 11. Though notice was served on the 4th respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, there is no representation on his behalf. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-02-BA-8223 was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and ought to have exonerated the insurance company from its liability, the fact remains that respondent No.3/insurer did not examine the RTA authorities, such as Motor Vehicle Inspector, or the owner of the crime vehicle, to prove that the rider-cum-owner of the vehicle 7 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.371 of 2022 did not possess valid driving license. Admittedly, the burden lies on the insurer to prove that there is no valid license in favour of the driver of the vehicle, which the insurer has failed to discharge. Therefore, the Tribunal held the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. This Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference with the impugned award. 14. As far as the non-joinder of necessary parties is concerned, it is settled law that the claimant is admittedly a third party and the claimant can file a petition against the motor cycle since the incident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants contended that the deceased was skilled electrician in contract works of PW3. The claimants proved the same by examining PW3 and marking Ex.A6 Salary Certificate, which showed that deceased used to earn Rs.14,850/- per month. As the age of the deceased was 29 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal below rightly applied the multiplier as 17 in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.. As stated supra, the Tribunal below took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,850/- per month and after adding 50% of the income towards future prospects, it would come to Rs.22,275/- per month and after deducting 1/2 of the income towards personal expenditure, as the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of the accident it would come to Rs.11,138/- per month. Accordingly, the Tribunal arrived at the annual income of the deceased at 8 VS,J M.A.C.M.A.No.371 of 2022 Rs.11,138 × 12 x 17 = Rs.22,72,152/-. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.22,97,152/- to the claimants. Thus, no interference is required with the said finding of the Tribunal as it is well reasoned order. 16. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the award impugned in this appeal. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.01.2026 PBS