APHC010542222022 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: 442/2022 Between: 1. M/S.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP BY IT'S DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BHANUGUDI JUNCTION, SUBHADRA ACADE, KAKINADA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. NADIGATLA NOOKA RAJU JAMINDHARU, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39, R/O UDDANDA JAGANADHAPURAM VILLAGE, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 533446. 2. NADIGATLA SAI RUPA, D/O. NOOKA RAJU @ JAMINDHARU, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS. R/O UDDANDA JAGANADHAPURAM VILLAGE, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 533446. 3. NADIGATLA VENKATA SAI SIVA PAVAN TEJA, S/O. NOOKA RAJU @ JAMINDHARU, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS. R/O UDDANDA JAGANADHAPURAM VILLAGE. PRATHIPADU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 533446. 4. BATHULA SATYANARAYANA, ( DIED), 5. SATYANARAYANA, S/O. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS , VADISALERU VILLAGE, RANGAMPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533294, (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AIQ-2499). 6. BATHULA SURYA KUMARI, W/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VADISALERU VILLAGE, RANGAMPETA 2 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. UAPPALAPATI DURGA DEVI, W/O. SURIBABU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O VADISALERU VILLAGE, RANGAMPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. VEMULAPALLI ANANTHA LAKSMI, W/O. SIVA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VADISALERU VILLAGE, RANGAMPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobegs to submit this Memorandum of Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal being aggrieved by the Award and Decree dt. 21-06- 2022 in M.V.O.P.No. 30 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Ill Additional District Court East Godavari, Kakinada 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 grant stay of execution of the Award and Decree dt. 21-06-2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 30 of 2018 by The III Addl District Judge-Cum- Chairman, M.A.C.T., Kakinada pending disposal of the main Appeal, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 21.06.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2018 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.14,30,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) to the petitioners therein/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, though the claim petition was originally filed for Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Nadigatla Vishnu Kumari alias Reddy Suryachakravathi in a motor accident that occurred on 12.12.2012. 02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the petitioners/claimants is briefly as follows: a) The 1st petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 are children of the deceased. b) The deceased was selected as Customer Service Provider in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). On 12.12.2012, she along with the 1st petitioner went to Yeleswaram, received appointment order and joined duty. Thereafter, they went to Annavaram and after having darshan of Sri Satyanarayana Swamy, while returning and when they reached near Santhi Ashramam cross road, the 1st respondent, who was driving the lorry bearing No.AIQ-2499, came from behind the motorcycle of the 1st 4 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 petitioner at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn. At first instance, he dashed against an auto bearing No.AP16TU-1685, causing the auto to turn turtle, and thereafter, with the same speed, dashed the motorcycle of the 1st petitioner and dragged it under the lorry. As a result, the deceased died on the spot and the 1st petitioner sustained injuries. A case was registered in Crime No.209 of 2012 under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC against the 1st respondent by the Annavaram Police Station. 04. The petitioners contended that the deceased was hale and healthy, working in NREGS and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and was maintaining the family. Due to her sudden demise, the family was shattered. The petitioners were completely dependent upon her earnings and suffered mental agony. Therefore, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents. 05. During the pendency of case, the 1st respondent/driver died intestate leaving respondents No.4 to 6 as his legal representatives, and hence they were impleaded as parties, and as the 1st respondent being driver of offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent was the owner of the said vehicle and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the said vehicle at the time of the accident, the petitioners prayed before the Tribunal that they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 06. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte. 5 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 07. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the lorry bearing No.AIQ- 2499 did not possess a valid permit, tax and fitness certificate at the time of alleged accident. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st petitioner, and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was also contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., the owner and insurer of the auto bearing No. AP16TU-1685. The petitioners were put to strict proof regarding the driving licence of the 1st respondent, the occurrence of the accident, the involvement of the vehicle, and the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It was further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 08. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the death of decased Nadigatla Vishnu Kumari alias Reddy Suryachakravathi, W/o Nookaraju alias Jamindhar was died in the accident occurred on 12.12.2012 at 11.30 p.m. near Santhi Ashramam Raod, Nellipudi outskirts, Sankavaram Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.AIQ-2499 by its driver i.e. 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief?” 09. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, the 1st petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd 6 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 respondent, K.Leela Krishna, Assistant Manager of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. R.W.2/P.Vasavi Priyanka, Senior Assistant from the RTA office, was also examined and Ex.X1/Authorization letter and Ex.X2/permit extract of the vehicle bearing No.AIQ-2499 were marked. 10. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.2 to 6 and awarded compensation of Rs.14,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said compensation and were directed to deposit the same within one month from the date of the judgment. Out of the said amount, the 1st petitioner was awarded an amount of Rs.4,30,000/-, out of which, he was permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- with accrued interest and the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be kept in deposit in his name in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners were awarded Rs.5,00,000/- each with accrued interest and the said amounts were directed to be kept in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority. The petitioners were also directed to pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation. Accordingly, the petitioners paid the deficit Court fee of Rs.8,300/- on 27.06.2022 and filed a memo before the Tribunal. 11. Aggrieved by the said award, the 3rd respondent/insurance company preferred the present appeal on the ground that Ex.B3/charge sheet clearly 7 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 shows that the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while under the influence of alcohol and caused the accident. Therefore, the driver being in an intoxicated condition constitutes a gross violation of the policy conditions. However, the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the said aspect. It was further contended that the rider of the motorcycle has also contributed to the accident by driving in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the insurance company. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 14. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was in a drunken condition at the time of accident, which amounts to violation of the policy conditions, and, as such, no liability can be fastened on the appellant/insurance company. To substantiate the said contention, the insurance company relied upon Ex.B3/copy of the charge sheet filed against the 1st respondent/driver. As can be seen from Ex.B3, the driver was arrested at the accident spot on 12.12.2012 and was 8 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 found to be in a drunken condition. He was sent for medical examination for issuance of a drunkenness certificate. LW14/Dr.P.Nanda Kishore examined the accused and issued a certificate stating that the driver had consumed alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. The charge sheet further states that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver while in a drunken condition, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased and simple injuries to the 1st petitioner. Though the Tribunal, upon considering the said evidence, held respondent Nos.2 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But, however, as per Ex.B3/copy of the charge sheet relied upon by the insurance company, it is an admitted fact that respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was in an intoxicated condition at the time of the accident. In such a case, this Court is of the opinion that there is a clear violation of the policy conditions, since the driver contributed to the said accident by driving the vehicle in a drunken state. 15. It is to be noted that under similar circumstances, where there is violation of the policy conditions, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., 1 held that if the insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance company may still be directed to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the insured (owner of the vehicle). This ensures that the rights of the third-party victim are protected and it was emphasized that insurance 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 9 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 policies are statutorily required to protect third parties, and even in cases of breach by the insured, the insurer's liability towards third-party victims does not vanish immediately. 16. In view of the above legal position and following the settled principles of law as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the instant case has to be first paid by the insurance company, and thereafter the insurance company can recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., owner of the lorry bearing No.AIQ-2499 i.e., respondent No.2. 17. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners contended that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working in NREGS, no documentary evidence was produced to prove the earnings of the deceased. In this regard, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal & anothers vs. National Insurance Co., Ltd., and others2 wherein it was held at para 32 that the gratuitous services rendered by a wife/mother to the husband and children cannot be equated with the services of an employee and no evidence or data can be produced for estimating the valid of such services. It is virtually impossible to measure in terms of money for the loss of personal care and attention suffered by the husband and children on the demise of the housewife….”. In the present case, considering the fact that the deceased was 2 AIR 2010 SC 3426 10 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 a housewife and was also working under NREGS, the Tribunal assessed her notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- X 12) per annum, which in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and requires no interference. Since there were three dependants i.e., husband and two minor children, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and arrived at Rs.80,000/- per annum (Rs.1,20,000/- - 1/3rd ) towards her contribution to the family. By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘17’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 29 years, as recorded in Ex.A2 -Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.13,60,000/- (Rs.80,000/- X 17) towards the loss of dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs.14,30,000/-, which cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. The order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The point is answered accordingly. 18. In view of the above discussion, while confirming the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court deems it appropriate to partly allow this appeal by modifying the award to the extent that the insurance company shall first pay the compensation to the petitioners/claimants and 11 VS,J MACMA No.442 of 2022 thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing registration No.AIQ-2499/respondent No.2. 19. With the above direction, this appeal is allowed in part. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 23.02.2026 KGR