1 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. APHC010585152022 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: 452/2022 Between: 1. BADHEPUDI RAM BABU, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, NOW AGED 44 YEARS 2. BADHEPUDI RAMA,, W/O. RAM BABU, NOW AGED 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VEGURU VILLAGE, KOVUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. BADDEPUDI SIVAIAH, S/O. DESAIAH, NOW AGED 28 YEARS, (DRIVER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO. AP 26 TL 6098 AND TRAILER BEARING NO. AP 39 T 8509) R/O. VEGURU VILALGE, KOVURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT (THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY AS NO CLAIM IS MADE AGAINST HIM IN THE APPEAL) 2. DEVARAM RAMANA REDDY, S/O. RAMACHANDRA REDDY OWNER OF TRACTOR R/O. VEGURU VILLAGE, KOVURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 3. M/S MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE SITUATED AT 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY NO. 134/3, PLOT NO. 16, TEACHERS COLONY, GURUNANAK ROAD, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA- 520 008 KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. SRINIVASA RAO KAMARAJUGADDA The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 452/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount, challenging the Order and Decree dated 29.08.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2020 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- Principal District Judge, Nellore, awarding Rs.7,89,000/- to the petitioners towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.11,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., appellants herein as Petitioners and Respondents herein as Respondents. 2. The Petitioners being parents of the deceased – Badhepudi Syam filed this petition under section 166 of the M.V Act claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-, together with interest and costs, for his death in a tractor accident. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition are that:- at the time of accident, deceased – Badhepudi Syam was aged about 19 years, he studied Degree course in Chandra Reddy Degree College and he used to give tuitions to 4 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. 1st Class to 8th Class students, earning Rs.10,000/- p.m., and contributing the same to his family members. Petitioners, being parents of the deceased, are dependents on the earnings of the deceased and deceased died unmarried. i. On 27.10.2019 at about 12.00 noon deceased went to Sand quarry, situated at Mudivarthi village to give lunch carriage to his cousin namely Sivaiah, who was working as driver to the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 26 TL 6098 and AP 39 T 8509 respectively. At about 1.00 p.m, the deceased handed over the lunch carrier to his cousin, who was sitting on driver's seat and he stood on the right side of tractor and trailer. After loaded the sand, the driver of the tractor started the tractor, but unfortunately the tractor and trailer turned turtle on its right side, due to which the deceased was stuck-up in the tractor and trailer, sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head, died on the spot. Petitioners spent Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.50,000/ towards funeral expenses. Therefore, Respondent No.1 being the driver of the tractor and trailer, Respondent No.2 being owner and Respondent No.3 being Insurance Company, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the Petitioners. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 have remained ex-parte. 5. Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the petition averments and contended that the person who drove the vehicle has no relation in force as on the date of accident. The said accident was occurred due to the 5 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. gross negligence of the deceased who traveled in the tractor and trailer as gratuitous passenger as there is no seating capacity and violated the policy terms. Though police registered Crime under Section 304-A of IPC, there is no cause of action and by managing the police filed charge sheet against offending vehicle for wrongful gain. As such, Respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the liability of Respondent No.2. As per Registration Certificate, permit and policy, the seating capacity is only one that is for driver. Tractor and trailer meant for transporting goods and at the material time of accident, the said vehicle was carrying passenger/deceased and there is no coverage under policy covering unauthorized passengers and there is specific condition in the policy which excluded the use of insured vehicle for carriage of any passenger. Respondent No.3 seeks protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of MV Act. Respondent No.2 violated Section 134(c) of M.V. Act and concerned police failed to follow the mandatory provision under Section 158(6) of M.V. Act. Respondent No.2 willfully and knowingly handed over the possession of the vehicle to the driver, who had no valid driving license and thereby violated the policy conditions and M.V Act conditions. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive. The claimants have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. There shall be no future prospects, since the deceased was not earning member and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal. 1) Whether deceased namely Badhepudi Syam died in the accident occurred on 27.10.2019, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver (R1) of the tractor and trailer bearing Registration No.AP 26 TL 6098 and AP 39 T 8509 respectively or due to gross negligence of deceased himself or with both? 2) Whether claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what Amount, and against whom? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of inquiry, on behalf of claim petitioners, 1st petitioner - Badhepudi Ram Babu got examined as P.W.1, one Adhuru Dayakar got examined as P.W.2, and one Konda Venkaiah got examined as P.W.3 and got marked Ex.A1 - Attested copy of FIR; Ex.A2 - Attested copy of charge sheet; Ex.A3 - Attested copy of PM report; Ex.A4 - Attested copy of Inquest report; Ex.A5 - Attested copy of MVI Report; Ex.A6 - SSC certificate; Ex.A7 - Study and conduct certificates - two in number. On behalf of Respondent No.3 one Abdul Raheem got examined as R.W.1, one Mohammad Madani got examined as R.W.2 and one S.A.Bhaskar Babu, S.I of Police, got examined as R.W.3 and got marked Ex.B1 - Attested 7 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. copy of Policy; Ex.X1 - Authorization; Ex.X2 - “B”. Register extract of Tractor bearing No.AP 26 TL 6098; Ex.X3 - “B” Register extract of Trailer bearing No.AP 39 T 8509; Ex.X.4 - Permit details of trailer; Ex.X.5 - Permit copy of Trailer; Ex.B.6 – section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3; Ex.X7 - section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2. 8. Upon hearing learned Counsel for Petitioners and counsel for Respondent No.3, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,89,000/- as compensation together with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization and with proportionate costs, directing respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, on such deposit Respondent No.3 is entitled to recover the same from R.2. 9. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the Petitioners have preferred the appeal on the grounds that – the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- p.m, instead of Rs.10,000/- p.m., and in not taking future prospectus of the deceased at 40% on the derived income of the deceased as he is below the age of 40 years and self employed. The tribunal erred in not considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, not granting filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each parent of the deceased and in awarding interest at 7.5% p.a instead of 12% per annum on awarded amount. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount and by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 8 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. 29.08.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2020 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- Principal District Judge, Nellore. 10. Heard the learned Counsel for Appellants as well as Respondents. 11. Now the point for determination is – whether the order/award passed by the tribunal needs any interference? 12. POINT: Perused the award passed by the Tribunal. On perusal of the award, it can be observed that the claimant No.1, who is the father of the deceased got examined himself as P.W.1 and deposed with regard to the nature of the accident and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 in support of his case. He also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3, who are said to be eyewitnesses to the said accident, who categorically deposed that on 27.10.2019 at about 01.00 p.m, at sand loading point tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 26 TL 6098 and AP 39T 8509 being driven by its driver, lost control over it and fell down in the ditch, at that time the deceased stood nearby the Tractor, and the Tractor fell on him, because of which, he died on the spot. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, coupled with Ex.A.2 - attested copy of the Charge Sheet, Ex.A.4 - copy of inquest report, Ex.A.5 - copy of MVI report held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.AP 26 TL 6098 and AP 39 T 8509, and because of which the deceased died. 9 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. 13. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was aged about 19 years and used to give tuitions to 1st class to 8th class students and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence in support of the said contention, relying upon various judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased as „18‟ as per Ex.A.3 - postmortem report, and as he is a bachelor, the tribunal deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. After deducting 50%, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.3,500/- (Rs.7,000 – Rs.3,500). 14. The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future prospects. As the age of the deceased is 18 years as on the date of the accident, he is entitled for an additional amount of 40% of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi1”, as such the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.4,900/-. (Rs.3,500 +1,400). Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs.58,800 (Rs.4,900 X 12). After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e., 18 for the age of 18 years, as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “Sarla 1 2018 ACJ 2782 10 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2”, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.58,800 X 18) Rs.10,58,400/-. 15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, which needs no interference. 16. Admittedly, both the claimants are parents of the deceased, who lost their 18 years old son. In such case, both the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for (Rs.40,000 + 40,000) Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.11,71,400/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. 17. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows: Sl. No. Head of the claim Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Ps. Amounts now awarded by this Court Rs. Ps. 1. Loss of dependency 7,56,000-00 10,58,400-00 2. Towards Funeral Expenses 16,500-00 16,500-00 3. Towards loss of estate 16,500-00 16,500-00 3. Towards Consortium -- 80,000-00 Total 7,89,000-00 11,71,400-00 2 2009 ACJ 1298 11 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. 18. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,89,000/- to Rs.11,71,400/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Accordingly, Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 23.02.2026. 12 MACMA NO.452 / 2022 VS,J. 256 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 452/2022 DATED 23.02.2026 KS