1 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. APHC010525832022 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: 398/2022 Between: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KADAPA ...APPELLANT AND 1. KUNTLURU NARASAMMA (P1), W/O LATE CHENGAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, 2. KUNTLURU HARINATH (P2), S/O LATE CHENGAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, CULTIVATION, 3. P SIVA KUMARI (P3), W/O MOHAN BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 2-1-193, NEW STREET, P.R. KANDRIGA, NAGIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. KUNTLURU VIJAYA KUMARI (P4), D/O LATE CHENGAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, STUDENT. RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF DOOR NO.1/9, NALLAPUREDDY PALLE, PENAGALUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. BOINA PAPA RAO (R1), S/O RAMULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE BEARING NO AP16TT - 8860 R/O DOOR NO. 3/9-39, BANIGI SAHEBPET, GUDURU, NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. PUJARI VENKATESWARLU VENKATAIAH (R3), S/O SUBBAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE BEARING NO.AP16TT - 8860 RIO MURLAPUDI VILLAGE, SAIDAPURAM MANDAL NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. YAGNA NARAYANA CHEBRALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 398/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the 2nd Respondent – Insurance Company i.e., United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Kadapa, challenging the Order and Decree dated 26.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.380 of 2018 by the Chairman, MACT –cum- I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, awarding compensation of Rs.14,06,500/- as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., the appellant herein as 2nd respondent, Respondents No.1 to 4 herein as Petitioners/claimants, Respondent No.5 as 1st respondent and Respondent No.6 as Respondent No.3 2. The brief facts of the petition in MVOP No.380 of 2018 are that – 1st petitioner being wife and 2nd to 4th Petitioners being children of K.Chengaiah (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of K.Chengaiah in a motor vehicle accident. 4 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. i. K.Chengaiah was aged 58 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident and he was professional cooking master at Hotels and functions and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family. ii. While so, on 25.02.2018 at 5.00 P.M, K.Chengalah and his son started on two motor cycles to go to Kodur to attend their relatives marriage. At about 5.50 A.M, when K.Chengalah reached near Narayana Nellore village, a lorry bearing No.AP16-TT-8860 was stranded in the middle of the road without any parking light, due to which, K.Chengalah who was riding the motor cycle dashed the lorry and sustained fatal injuries. His son who was behind him shifted him to Government Hospital, Rajampet, where K.Chengaiah died. iii. The lorry bearing No.AP16-TT-8860 belongs to 1st respondent, which is insured with 2nd respondent and 3rdrespondent is driver of the lorry. The accident was registered as a case in Cr.No.55 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code in Penagaluru Police Station. 3. The respondent No.2 filed his counter stating that the accident occurred near Narayana Nellore Village, Penagalur Mandal within the jurisdiction of III Addl. District Court, Rajampet and this Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter and denied the manner and mode of the accident, occupation and income of the deceased and contended that Sections 134 (c) and 158 (6) of M.V. Act have been violated and admitted that the policy was issued to respondent No.1 and 5 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. contended that the lorry should have valid fitness and permit and that the deceased does not have a valid driving license and he got confused as he was driving in high speed and dashed the back side of the lorry which was parked on the left side of the road and a false case was foisted against 3rd respondent who is the driver of the lorry and that the owner and the insurance company of the motor cycle are not made parties to the present petition, hence, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 4. Basing on the above rival contentions, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal for Trial:- 1) Whether the deceased K.Chengalah died due to the injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.02.2018 at about 5.50 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP16-TT- 8860? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 5. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioners/claimants, 1st Petitioner – K.Narasamma got examined as P.W.1 and son of the deceased by name – K.Harinadh got examined P.W.2 and also got marked – Ex.A.1 – certified copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.55 of 2011 of Penagaluru Police Station, Ex.A.2 – Certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 – certified copy of postmortem certificate, Ex.A.4 – 6 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, Ex.A.5 – certified copy of charge sheet. On behalf of respondents, an Official from R.T.O office got examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 – insurance policy, Ex.B.2, Authorization letter, Ex.B.3 – Fitness certificate, Ex.B.4 – Registration particulars. 6. Upon hearing both sides, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.14,06,500/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/- of the claimants, along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition, till the date of realization, along with proportionate costs, directing Respondents No.1 to 3 were jointly and severally directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within one (01) month, from the date of Order. 7. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the grounds – the Tribunal taken the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- by considering as cook basing on the evidence of family members, though no proof of document is filed, instead of taking the income of the deceased asRs.7,000/- per month. P.W.2 clearly deposed in his evidence that his father has no valid and effective driving license to drive two wheeler of this type involved in the accident and the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased as he himself dashed 7 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. the stationed lorry on its back side with high speed, the driver of lorry parked the vehicle on the left side of the road margin and ought not held that the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP16 TT 8860 was not negligent and responsible for the accident. The trial Court erred in awarding compensation in view of the non- joining of proper and necessary parties in the claim petition i.e., the insured and insurer of the motor cycle on which the deceased K.Chengaiah was travelling at the time of accident. The tribunal taken age of deceased as 58 years, though as per age particulars of his children he may be above 62 years. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 26.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.380 of 2018 on the file of Chairman, MACT -cum- I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 8. Heard both counsel for the parties, perused the material in record. 9. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 10. POINT: On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that the 1st claimant, who is wife of the deceased, got examined herself as P.W.1 and to prove the manner of accident got examined the son of the deceased who is an eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2, whose version corroborated with the affidavit with respect to the accident. Therefore, the tribunal relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 – certified copy of FIR and Ex.P.5 - certified copy of the charge sheet, in Cr.No.55 of 2011 of 8 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. Penagaluru Police Station, 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. 11. With regard to the quantum of compensation, though it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was professional cooking master and earning Rs.50,000/- per month, in the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the same, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month as the accident took place in the year 2018. As there are 4 dependents in the present case, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/4th, the monthly income of the deceased contributing to his family would come to (Rs. 15,000 x 12 = 1,80,000 - 1/4 i.e., 45,000/- =) Rs.1,35,000/-. As the age of the deceased is 58 years as on the date of the accident, he is entitled for an additional amount of 10% of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in "National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi"1, as such the annual income of the deceased would come to (1,35,000+10% i.e.,13,500/- =) Rs.1,48,500/-. After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. ‘9’ for the age group of 58 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport 12018 ACJ 2782 9 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. Corporation" 2 , the loss of dependency would come to (1,48,500 x 9 =) Rs.13,36,500/-. 12. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to 1st petitioner. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.14,06,500/- as compensation to the claimants. 13. Coming to the liability of 2nd respondent and the contention that deceased was negligent and was not having proper driving license to ride the motor cycle and P.W.2 who is son of the deceased in his cross examination though admitted that his father does not have a valid driving license and that the accident took place at 5.15 A.M, but he denied the suggestion that offending lorry was parked on the left side of the road. R.W.1 who is the official of the RTO in his examination stated that the offending lorry has valid fitness certificate and permit and therefore the contention of 2nd respondent in his written statement that the offending lorry has no proper documents is not correct. As per charge sheet –Ex.A.5 it is clearly evident that the investigation officer filed final report that the lorry was parked negligently in the middle of the road and as it was dark at the time of the accident i.e., 05.15 A.M., the deceased could not see the negligently parked lorry without any precautionary lights and dashed it, due to which he died 22009 ACJ 1298 10 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. and as such the negligence is on the part of the driver of the lorry who parked it in the middle of the road, without any precaution. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the deceased in occurrence of the accident. Hence, impleadment of insurer and insured of the motor cycle as proper and necessary parties in the claim petition is not necessary. In the above facts and circumstances, I find no illegality in the Order passed by the learned Trial Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 31.01.2026. 11 MACMA No. 398 / 2022 VS,J. 192 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 398/2022 DATED 31.01.2026 KS