APHC010588862022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL Between: 1. ROYAL SUNDARAM GIC LTD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE, 4 BENZ CIRCLE, 1. K SUNEETHA, W/O. LATE VISWANATH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,HOUSE WIFE, 2. KONETIHEMANTH KUMAR, S/O. LATE VISWANATH, 06 YEARS, HINDU, MINOR 3. KONETIMAHIDHAR, S/O. LATE VISWANTH, 03 YEARS, HINDU, MINOR, 4. KONETISRINIVASALU, S/O. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, COOLIE, 5. KONETI LAKSHMI DEVI, W YEARS, HINDU, COOLIE ALL R/O. YEDDALAVARIPALLE VILLAGE, H/O. Y. KOTA, CHENNARASAPALLE POST, OTTULAVARIPALLE MANDAL, 6. GARLAPATISUMALATHA, KADAPA DIST. W/O. SURESH BABU, D.NO. 7-181, MAIN BAZAAR, ATHMAKUR SPSR, NELLORE DISTRICT 524 322. 1 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 SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 538 ROYAL SUNDARAM GIC LTD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE, 4-1-55/A, WR SQUARE, 1ST FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, ...APPELLANT AND K SUNEETHA, W/O. LATE VISWANATH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,HOUSE WIFE, KONETIHEMANTH KUMAR, S/O. LATE VISWANATH, 06 YEARS, KONETIMAHIDHAR, S/O. LATE VISWANTH, 03 YEARS, HINDU, KONETISRINIVASALU, S/O. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KONETI LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. SRINIVASALU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, COOLIE ALL R/O. YEDDALAVARIPALLE VILLAGE, H/O. Y. KOTA, CHENNARASAPALLE POST, OTTULAVARIPALLE GARLAPATISUMALATHA, KADAPA DIST. W/O. SURESH BABU, 181, MAIN BAZAAR, ATHMAKUR POST AND MANDAL, SPSR, NELLORE DISTRICT 524 322. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 538 OF 2022 ROYAL SUNDARAM GIC LTD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, 55/A, WR SQUARE, 1ST FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, ...APPELLANT K SUNEETHA, W/O. LATE VISWANATH AGED ABOUT 26 KONETIHEMANTH KUMAR, S/O. LATE VISWANATH, 06 YEARS, KONETIMAHIDHAR, S/O. LATE VISWANTH, 03 YEARS, HINDU, KONETISRINIVASALU, S/O. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, /O. SRINIVASALU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, COOLIE ALL R/O. YEDDALAVARIPALLE VILLAGE, H/O. Y. KOTA, CHENNARASAPALLE POST, OTTULAVARIPALLE GARLAPATISUMALATHA, KADAPA DIST. W/O. SURESH BABU, POST AND MANDAL, 2 7. GARLAPATISESHA SAI, S/O. SURESH BABU, 25 YEARS, D.NO. 7- 181, MAIN BAZAAR, ATHMAKUR POST AND MANDAL, SPSR, NELLORE 524322 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A.SAI ROHIT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR 2. SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 538 OF 2022 JUDGMENT : The Insurance Company/ Respondent No.2 filed the present Appeal challenging the order and decree dated 05.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.6 of 2020 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.22,12,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.40,00,000/-, on account of the death of Mr. Koneti Viswanath (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident that occurred on 18.04.2019. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants is briefly as follows: On 18.04.2019 at 6.00 a.m, the deceased left the village along with Modabothula Hari and proceeded to Lakkarajupalle Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal on Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP 04 BX 0258. The deceased was driving the vehicle on the way when he reached at Kothapalle Village at 10.30 a.m, the driver of the car bearing No. AP 26 CD 1349 coming in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased in high speed, due to which, the deceased fell on the road and sustained severe injuries on his head and died at the spot. The pillion rider Mr. Hari sustained bleeding injuries on his left knee. The Ananthasagaram Police registered a case in Crime No.52 of 2019 under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC against the 4 driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Claimants filed this claim petition seeking compensation from the Respondents. 4. Before the Tribunal, the Respondents Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte. 5. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying material allegations made in the claim petition, inter alia contending that the deceased drove the vehicle without skills in a speed manner and lost control over the motorcycle and while negotiating from left to right side, without observing the other vehicles, fell from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. There was no fault on the part of the Respondent No.3. The deceased not getting any income of Rs. 75,000/- as stated in the claim petition. It was further contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is a speculative one and the same is excessive. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased Koneti Viswanath, son of Srinivasulu met with an accident on 18.4.2019 and died due to the rash and negligent act of the driver/ respondent No.3 driver of a car Maruthi Beleno Alpha, bearing No. AP 26 CD 1349 relating to respondent No.1, which was insured with second respondent insurance company? 2. Whether the petitioners/ claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 5 7. On behalf of the Petitioners/ Claimants, P.Ws.1 and 3 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined and no document was marked. 8. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.22,12,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and Respondents No.1 to 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount to the Claimants and initially the Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation at first instance and it is entitled to recover the contribution made by the Respondent No.2 from the Respondents 1 and 3 in accordance with law. 9. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company preferred this Appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and in order to overtake the vehicle going ahead came extreme to the right of the road went and hit to the offending car coming in opposite direction and also the deceased not wearing Helmet while driving the motorcycle and that violated Section 128 and 129 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month without any valid documentary proof and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 6 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants/ Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 12. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that on 18.04.2019 at 6.00 a.m, the deceased left the Village along with Modabothula Hari and reached at Kothapalli Village at about 10.30 a.m, the driver of the car bearing No. AP 26 CD 1349 coming in opposite direction in a rash and negligent amner and hit the deceased motorcycle in high speed, due to which, the deceased fell on the road and sustained severe injuries on his head and died at the spot. The Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PW-1, who is none other than the father of the deceased, who categorically stated that the deceased died due to the head injury in the accident, coupled with Ex.A1 is the C.C of FIR in Crime No.52 of 2019; Ex.A4 is the C.C of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report and Ex.A5 C.C of Charge Sheet filed by the Police after thorough investigation would show that the driver of the car bearing No. AP 26 CD 1349 i.e Respondent No.3 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed dashed against the deceased, which resulted the death of the deceased has answered issue No.1 in favour of the Claimants. 7 13. 7 13. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, though it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month, in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-. As there are 5 dependents in the present case, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/4th, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.7,500/- (Rs.10,000 – Rs.2,500). As the age of the deceased is 27 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.10,500/-. (7,500+3,000). Accordingly, annual income would come to Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.10,500 X 12). After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. 17 for the age group of 27 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 ”, the loss of dependency would come to (126000X17) Rs.21,42,000/-. 14. 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. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.22,12,000/- to the claimants. 1 2018 ACJ 2782 2 2009 ACJ 1298 8 15. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.22,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, for the death of the deceased, was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 17.02.2026 KK