APHC010507592023 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: 632/2023 Between: 1. NIMMAKAYALA GANGA BHAVANI, W/O.LATE VENKATA RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC.HOUSWIFE R/O.DEGALAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 2. NIMMAKAYALA SREELATHA DEVI, D/O.LATE VENKATA RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC.STUDENT R/O.DEGALAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. MUSSADI BHASKAR, S/O.CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, (OWNER OF THE MOTOR CAR BEARING NO.AP-21-6963 R/O.D.NO.38/5097, TILAKNAGAR, KADAPA CITY YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AP 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE DHOBHIGHAT ROAD, KADAPA CITY YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. SINGAMSETTI NAGARATHNAM, S/O.PEDDA VENKATA SUBBAIAH(DIED) HINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC.DRIVER OF MOTOR CAR BEARING NO. AP-21-V-6963 R/O.LINGAMPALLI VILLAGE, SIDHOUT MANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2 VS,J MACMA.No.632 of 2023 4. SINGAMSETTY LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O.LATE SINGAMSETTY NAGARATHNAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HINDU, OCC.HOSUEWIFE, R/O. LINGAMPALLI VILLAGE, SIDHOUT MANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE APPEAL) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to Aggrieved by the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.403/2015 dt.20- 06-2023 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA.No.632 of 2023 JUDGMENT: The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 20.06.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.403 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.36,70,056/- (Rupees Thirty six lakhs and seventy thousand and fifty six only), as against the claim of Rs.40,00,000/-, for the death of the deceased Nimmakayala Sreenivasa Reddy in a motor accident that occurred on 13.02.2013. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: On 13.02.2013 the deceased Nimmakayala Sreenivasa Reddy and petitioners went to Pesalavaripalli village to attend marriage of his relative and at about 6.00pm, he took a motorcycle bearing No.AP04 AA 0091 of his relatives and was proceeding to Kadapa on his personal work and at 6.30pm, when he reached near Gorlapalli Electrical Sub Station on Yellaturu – Mulavanka tar road, then the 1st respondent’s motor cab bearing No.AP21 V 6963 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without blowing horn and without applying dim and dipper, dashed against the motorcycle of deceased and ran away without stopping, as a result the deceased sustained serious injuries 4 VS,J MACMA.No.632 of 2023 and immediately, he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, again he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore, but on the way the deceased succumbed to injuries and that a case in Crime No.29/2013 was registered by C.K.Dinne P.S. Prior to the date of accident, the deceased was working as Soldier and earning monthly income of Rs.21,822/-. Therefore, the petitioners sought compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- from the respondents. 4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.4 who is wife of respondent No.3 (died), remained ex parte. 4. Respondent No.1 who is owner of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and contended that the allegation made in the main claim petition that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver i.e., 3rd respondent of motor cab of this respondent is false and the same has to be proved by the petitioners by filing relevant documents, that he came to know that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, that 3rd respondent further informed him that inspite of all precautions made by him to avoid the accident, the deceased himself driven the said motorcycle in a jig jag manner with high speed, came in a wrong side and dashed against his vehicle, but the petitioners influenced the police to register the case against the 3rd respondent even though there is no negligence on the part of 3rd respondent, to get wrongful gain, that his motor cab bearing No.AP21 V 6963 was insured with 2nd respondent and the driver of this respondent vehicle i.e., 3rd respondent was having valid driving license 5 VS,J MACMA.No.632 of 2023 to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident and hence, prayed the court to dismiss the petition with costs. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred is due to rash or negligent driving of the driver of Motor Cab bearing No.AP21 V 6963 that resulted in causing death to the deceased N. Sreenivasa Reddy? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, If so, to what amount and from whom? and 3. To what relief?” 6. On behalf of the claimants, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7, besides examining witness PW2 who is eye witness to the accident on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2, RWs1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B6. 7. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed in part the claim petition against respondents, awarding compensation of Rs.36,70,056/- (Rupees Thirty six lakhs seventy thousand and fifty six only) together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount along with interest and costs into court within two (2) months from the date of this order. 6 VS,J MACMA.No.632 of 2023 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants/claimants preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of estate, filial consortium to the mother and sister of the deceased and also transport charges and also ought to have awarded the rate of interest at 9% per annum. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 11. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.3, the claimants relied upon the evidence of PW2-eye witness and documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A7. The Tribunal through the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 to A7 established that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 3rd respondent, due to which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly articulated the rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle which needs no interference. 7 VS,J MACMA.No.632 of 2023 12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as the deceased was working as Indian Army Soldier and getting monthly income of Rs.21,822/- as on the date of accident and deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, an addition of 50% of established income Rs.10,911/-(Rs.21,822/- x 50%), in total the income of the deceased would come to Rs.32,733/-(Rs.21,822/- + Rs.10,911/-) and after deducting 50% towards personal living expenses of the deceased it would come to Rs.16,366/-(Rs.32,733/- - 50%). The annual income of the deceased, would come to Rs.1,96,392/-(Rs.16,366/- x 12). As the age of the deceased was 25 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal below rightly applied the multiplier as ‘18’ in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd1. After applying the multiplier ‘18’, it would come to Rs.35,35,056/-(Rs.1,96,392/- x 18). In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.70,000/- towards mental agony to petitioner No.1, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection to petitioner No.2. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.36,70,056/- (Rs.35,35,056/- + Rs.70,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) to the claimants. Respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount along with interest and costs. Thus, no interference is required with the said finding of the Tribunal. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8 VS,J MACMA.No.632 of 2023 13. In view of the above reasons, this Court finds no error in the said finding of the Tribunal, warranting interferen15ce with the impugned award. 14. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 09.02.2026 PBS