1 VS,J MACMA_727 of 2023 APHC010573482023 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: 727/2023 Between: 1. M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, E-B, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK DASTAGIRI SHAIK DASTAGIRI VALLI, S/O. MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT BODEVARIPALLI VILLAGE, THONDUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT (DIED) HIS LEGAL HEIRS. 2. SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O IMAM SAHEB, AGED 55 YEARS. 3. SHAIK MAHABOOB BEE, W/O MAHABOOB BASHA AGED 55 YEARS. 4. SHAIK MAHABOOB SHAREEF, S/O MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED 28 YEARS. 5. SHAIK MABU CHAND, S/O MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED 19 YEARS. (RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF D.N0.3/54-B, BODEVARIPALLI VILLAGE, THONDUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT) 6. P L SIVA SANKAR REDDY, S/O.SOMESWARA REDDY, AGED 37 2 VS,J MACMA_727 of 2023 YEARS. DRIVER FOR TRACTOR NO.AP-04-X-8832, RESIDING AT TELIKI VILLAGE, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 7. ANKIREDDYPALLI PEDDA KONDA REDDY, S/O PEDDA KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.AP-04-X-8832, RESIDING AT D.NO.3/95, SETTIVARIPALLI, MYDUKUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the Decree and Order dated 20.06.2023 passed in MVOP No. 147 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and dismiss the MVOP No. 147 of 2015 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein/ Claim Petitioners against the Appellant herein/ Respondent No.3 in the lower court and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 condone the delay of 15 days in filing the above appeal against the proceedings dated 20.06.2023 passed in MVCP No. 147 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 all further proceedings dated 20.06.2023 passed in MVCP No. 147 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur including execution proceedings and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 VS,J MACMA_727 of 2023 1. V NITESH 2. The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA_727 of 2023 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the appellant – Insurance company challenging the award dated 20.06.2023 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in M.V.O.P.No.147 of 2015 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for theinjuries sustained by one Shaik Dastagiri (hereinafter referred to as ‘injured’) in an accident that occurred on 11.01.2015 at the welding shop of S. Mahammad Rafi, Yerraguntla town. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant No.1 is the injured, who initially filed the claim petition, but has later died on 25.02.2016 pending the claim petition. Thus, the claimant Nos.2 to 5 got impleaded themselves in the claim petition. The respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the tractor bearing No.AP04X8832. On 11.01.2015, when the injured was attending his welding works at Muddanru road, Yerraguntla town, the 1st respondent brought the subject tractor for some welding works and as a part of the same, the injured went behind the tractor; at that juncture, the 1st respondent, negligently, without noticing that the reverse gear of the tractor was engaged, started the engine of the tractor, as a result of which, the rear tyre of the tractor rolled over the body of the injured resulting in grievous injuries. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Government district hospital Proddatur and later to V-care hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad for further treatment. The incident was reported to local police who registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2015. It is the case of the claimants that the injured used 5 VS,J MACMA_727 of 2023 to earn Rs.15,000/- per month apart from the additional income of Rs.5,000/- from the welding works. The claim petition was initially filed by seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the injured, but, later, though the injured died on 25.02.2016 and though his legal heirs were added as claimant Nos.2 to 5, they did not choose to amend the prayer. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. The 3rd respondent has contested the claim petition by filing a written statement contending that there is no fault on the part of the 1st respondent and further contended that though the 2nd respondent is very well aware that the 1st respondent had no driving license as on the date of accident, he let the 2nd respondent use the vehicle which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence requested the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.01.2015 at about 5.05 pm., near S.Mahammad Rafi welding shop, Muddanur road, Yerraguntla town due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the 2nd respondent Tractor bearing No.AP:04.X.8832? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. 7. The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and material available before it, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to 6 VS,J MACMA_727 of 2023 the negligence of the 1st respondent and as he was holding a valid driving license and as the insurance of the subject tractor was in force as on the date of accident, the Tribunal made the 3rd respondent entirely liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal though has computed the compensation amount payable to the claimants as Rs.34,43,696/- under different heads, restricted the same to Rs.25,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the 3rd respondent filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. Heard Smt. A Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri. V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- without there being any documentary proof and though the claimants had not proved the disability certificate assessing the disability of the injured as 95%, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. Furthermore, without verifying the truth or otherwise of the medical bills submitted by the claimants amounting to Rs.3,37,696/-, the Tribunal has awarded the said amount to the claimants. She further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous and without any basis, hence requested this Court to set-aside the impugned award. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the award passed by the Tribunal in all aspects and contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the claimants and that the same need not be interfered with by this Court. 7 VS,J MACMA_727 of 2023 11. Perused the entire material available on record. Initially, the claim petition was filed by the injured himself, pending the claim petition, the injured died on 25.02.2016 and later, though his legal heirs were impleaded as claimant Nos.2 to 5, the prayer in the claim petition was not altered and it remained as a petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the injured. 12. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the claimants got examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3 and have relied upon the FIR (Ex.A3), charge sheet (Ex.A2) and wound certificate issued by the doctor to the injured (Ex.A3). A perusal of the FIR and charge sheet would show that a case has been registered against the 1st respondent in Crime No.7 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet alleging that the 1st respondent is liable for commission of the said offence. In view of the above, it is clear that the claimants could establish that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the 1st respondent only. The finding of the Tribunal to that effect needs not interference. Furthermore, relying on the copy of the insurance policy which is marked as Ex.B2, as per which it is clear that as on the date of accident, the vehicle in question is insured, the Tribunal fixed the liability on the 3rd respondent of paying compensation to the claimants. 13. It can be seen from the material on record that the injured has initially undergone treatment in Government hospital, Kurnool and was later shifted to V-care hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad for further treatment where the injured is said to have incurred expenditure of Rs.3,09,703/- as inpatient and the same is also evident from Ex.A5. Further, Exs.A7 to A16 8 VS,J MACMA_727 of 2023 are the original medical bills amounting to Rs.27,993/- which were incurred by the injured. Relying on the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,37,696/- to the claimants under the head of medical expenditure. Ex.A18 is the disability certificate by way of which the disability of the injured was assessed as 95%. The Tribunal has taken the income of the injured as Rs.20,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- under the head of loss of income from the date of accident for a period of one year. It further computed his annual income as Rs.2,40,000/-. The deceased was aged about 19 years as on the date of accident and the Tribunal, after deducting the 1/3rd of his annual income [Rs.2,40,000/- - 1/3rd of Rs.2,40,000/- = Rs.1,60,000/-] towards personal expenses and after multiplying the relevant multiplier of ‘18’ as per Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, and after multiplying the same with 95% disability, computed the amount of Rs.27,36,000/- under the head of loss of earnings due to permanent disability [Rs.1,60,000/- X 95% X 18]. In addition the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,20,000/- for the four injuries sustained by the injured and Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges incurred by the injured during the course of treatment. In total, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the claimants as Rs.34,43,696/- [Rs.3,37,696/- + Rs.2,40,000/- + Rs.27,36,000/- + Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.10,000/-]. 14. However, as the claim petition was only filed for Rs.25,00,000/-, the Tribunal restricted the compensation to Rs.25,00,000/- and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the amount to the claimants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the claimants have not chosen to amend the petition to seek compensation on account of the death of the injured, this Court is of the opinion that 1AIR 2009 SCC3104 9 VS,J MACMA_727 of 2023 awarding compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- is just, proper and reasonable, considering the fatal injuries sustained by the injuries and keeping in view the mental agony the claimants would have faced because of the said incident. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in M.V.O.P.No.147 of 2015 is on reasonable basis and the same need not be intervened by this Court. Accordingly, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:23.02.2026. Gss