APHC010563772009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the seventeenth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Between: United India Insurance Company Limited and Bathula Thirupataiah and Others Counsel for the appellant: 1. Srinivasa Rao Vutla Counsel for the respondents: 1. N. S. Bhaskara Rao 2. Venkateswarlu Sanisetty The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the seventeenth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3117 of 2009 United India Insurance Company Limited Bathula Thirupataiah and Others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Srinivasa Rao Vutla Counsel for the respondents: N. S. Bhaskara Rao Venkateswarlu Sanisetty The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the seventeenth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Miscellaneous Appeal No.3117 of 2009 ...Appellant ...Respondents 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3117 of 2009 JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.3117 of 2009 is filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and the award dated 15.04.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.158 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge’s Court, Ongole. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.3314 of 2009 is filed by the respondent No.6 against the same decree and the award. The appeal was dismissed for default on 13.02.2026. 3. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the claimants. The other respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed in the same manner as before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: The claimant No.1 is the father and the claimant No.2 is the mother of B.Venkatasesha Rao (herein after referred to as deceased). On 07.01.2008, at about 07.00 A.M., while the deceased and his friend were proceeding to their college in an auto bearing No.AP 27 V 7910 owned by the respondent No.2, insured with the respondent No.3, being driven by the respondent No.1 near Vengamukkalapalem Junction on South bypass road, Ongole, a tractor-cum-trailer bearing No.AP 27 W 5814 and 5815 owned by the respondent No.5, insured with the respondent No.6 being driven by the respondent No.4 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto. As a result, the inmates of the auto fell on the road and sustained injuries. The deceased was shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Ongole, and thereafter to People’s Trauma Hospital, Guntur where he was treated upto 15.01.2008 and later shifted 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3117 of 2009 to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad where he succumbed to the injuries on 20.01.2008. A case in Crime No.6 of 2008 was registered by the S.H.O., Ongole Taluk Police Station, under Sections 337 and 304-A I.P.C. The deceased was aged 20 years and was studying third year engineering. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 5. The respondent No.2 remained ex parte. The respondent No.1 did not file counter. 6. The respondent No.3 filed a written statement and an additional written statement denying the case pleaded by the claimants and further disowning liability due to violation of terms and conditions of the policy and also stating that the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the tractor and trailer alone as there was no negligence of the driver of the auto. 7. The respondent No.4 adopted the written statement filed by the respondent No.5 by which all the case pleaded by the claimants and the allegation of rash and negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer were denied and further pleaded that the driver of the auto was rash and negligent in driving the auto and causing the accident. 8. The respondent No.6 filed a separate written statement denying the pleaded case of the claimants and disowning its liability alleging violation of terms of policy and attributing rash and negligence to the driver of the auto. 9. After hearing all the parties and considering the evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,35,000/-, out of which Rs.3,70,500/- i.e., 30% of the awarded amount is directed to be paid by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and the rest of amount of Rs.8,64,500/- i.e., 70% of the awarded amount is directed to be paid by the respondents 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3117 of 2009 Nos.4 to 6, together with interest @ 9% from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs proportionate to the amount of compensation liable to be paid. 10. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was filed by the respondent No.3 / United India Insurance Company Ltd. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant / respondent No.3 submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability against the respondents Nos.1 to 3 relating to the auto in spite of the evidence that the charge sheet was filed only against the driver of the tractor and trailer after due investigation by the police and that the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest granted are high. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting only 1/3rd income as personal expenditure instead of deducting 50% as the deceased was unmarried. He further submitted that he does not press the ground taken that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier ‘15’, though the relevant multiplier is 12.79 as per the judgment of this High Court in Bhagawan Das Vs. Mohd. Arif1 as now the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others2 is followed to choose the relevant multiplier. 12. The respondent No.6 preferred appeal on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have fixed total liability on the driver of the auto as the auto hit the tractor at the middle of the tractor while the auto was crossing N.H.No.5 road but 70% of liability was fastened on the driver of 1 AIR 1988 AP 99 2 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3117 of 2009 the tractor also contrary to the evidence on record and that the claimant No.1 has his independent source of living through cultivation and is not a dependent on the deceased and that during the life time of the father of the deceased, the claimant No.2 who is the mother of the deceased may not be treated as dependent on the deceased and therefore, both of them are entitled to compensation only under the head of loss of estate. As the deceased was not an earning member, this appellant challenged the rate and granting interest on the ground that the accident was not intimated, nor were the particulars of the accident furnished. The quantum of compensation under all heads is challenged as excessive. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 / claimants submitted that the Tribunal rightly held that the drivers of both the vehicles are liable as the auto was hit by the tractor and trailer while crossing the road and the accident could have been averted by the driver of the auto, if he was vigilant and therefore the driver of the auto is also liable, apart from the driver of the tractor and trailer whose higher degree of negligence resulted in the accident. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the total amount awarded is just and reasonable irrespective of the amount to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased because the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is low since ‘15’ was applied basing on the age of the mother instead of ‘18’ as per the age of the deceased and future prospects of the deceased were not considered and no separate amount was awarded towards parental consortium. 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3117 of 2009 14. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.3117 of 2009 contended that there was no cross appeal / objections filed by the claimants, for which the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there is no need to file a separate appeal or cross objections and just and reasonable amount of compensation can be granted and that he submitted the above arguments to justify the amount granted by the Tribunal as certain criteria had not been followed by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. 15. It is settled law that irrespective of the proceedings in a criminal case, the point of negligence shall be decided by the Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it. The Tribunal has rightly evaluated the evidence on the aspect of negligence and has rightly come to the just conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles are responsible at the rate of 30% and 70% respectively. 16. The finding does not require any interference. As such, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned decree and the award. 17. In the result, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.3117 of 2009 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 17.02.2026 NSM / RAR