APHC010633852022 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: 499/2022 Between: 1. CHOLA MS GIC LIMITED, ,REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, FLAT NO.302, 2ND FLOOR,ESWAR PLAZA, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM ...APPELLANT AND 1. ALUGU LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE PAPA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, TELUKULA BY CASTE, HINDU, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES AND COOLIE, R/O.VANGARA VILLAGE, VANGARA MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ALUGU GANESH, , S/O.LATE PAPA RAO, AGED 10 YEARS, TELUKULA BY CASTE, HINDU, STUDENT, R/O.REST - DO. 3. ALUGU VYKUNTA RAO, S/O.LATE PAPA RAO, AGED 8 YEARS, TELUKULA BY CASTE, HINDU, STUDENT, R/O.REST - DO. 4. ALUGU PAPAMMA, W/O.LATE SATYAM, AGED 60 YEARS, TELUKULA BY CASTE, HINDU, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O.REST - DO (THE PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER GUARDIAN AND 1ST PETITIONER ALUGU LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE PAPA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, TELUKULA BY CASTE, HINDU, HOUSE HOLD DUTIES AND COOLIE, R/O.VANGARA VILLAGE, VANGARA MANDALAM, SRIKAKAULAM DISTRICT.) 5. PALAVALASA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O.PENTAM NAIDU, AGED 41 2 VS,J MACMA No.499 of 2022 YEARS, KAPU BY CASTE, HINDU, ACTUAL DRIVER OF TRACTOR/TRUCK AP 30 V 96741 AP 30 W 3257, R/O.VANGARA VILLAGE, VANGARA MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. PALAVALASA SEETHAM NAIDU, S/O.PENTAM NAIDU AGED 45 YEARS, KAPU BY CASTE, HINDU, REGULAR DRIVER OF TRACTOR/TRUCK AP 30 V 9674 / AP 30 W 3257, R/O.VANGARA VILLAGE, VANGARA MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 7. AVU HYMAVATHI, W/O.SURYANARAYANA, AGED 53 YEARS, KAPU BY CASTE, OWNER OF THE TRACTOR/TRUCK AP 30 V 9674/ AP 30 W 3257, R/O.ONI AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, VANGARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum - I Additional District Judge. Srikakulam. dated 23rd day of May. 2022. and pass 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 condone the delay of 71 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against the decree and judgment M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, dated 23rd day of May, 2022, and pass IA NO: 2 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment dated the 23rd day of May, 2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, including execution proceedings, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 3 VS,J MACMA No.499 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 permit the petitioners/ respondents 1 to 4 to withdraw the 50% amount together with interest and costs deposited to to credit of the M.V.O.P. No. 192 of 2016 dated 28-12-2022 pending disposal of the appeal and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RAVI SHANKAR 2. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA No.499 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The Appellant/Insurance Company, filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 23.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.499 of 2020 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,48,500/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred Only) to the petitioners/respondents No.1 to 4 herein, as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Alugu Paparao in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.02.2015. 02. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the drivers of the offending vehicle, Respondent No.3 is the owner of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.4 is the insurer of the said vehicle before the Tribunal. 03. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 04. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: On the intervening night of 15/16‑02‑2015, the deceased Alugu Paparao, who was working as a coolie, went along with Tractor/Truck bearing No. AP 30 V 9674 / AP 30 W 3257 for loading sand at the Nagavali River sand ramp. While he was sitting near the sand ramp, Respondent No.1, the driver of the tractor, while reversing the vehicle, dashed against the deceased and the tractor ran over him, causing 5 VS,J MACMA No.499 of 2022 instantaneous death at the spot. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No.6 of 2015 was registered under Section 304‑A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Station House Officer, Vangara Police Station. 05. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 37 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as a coolie. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ drivers, were holding valid driving licenses. Respondent No.3 was the owner of the vehicle, and Respondent No.4 was the insurer, and the policy was valid up to 13.07.2015. Hence, the petitioners sought compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondents. 06. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 07. Respondent No.4/insurance company filed a written statement, contending that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving license and that the owner of the vehicle had knowingly handed over the vehicle to such person, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further contended that the death occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was also alleged that the accident occurred during illegal transportation of sand, which amounted to violation of the policy conditions. The Insurance Company disputed the age, occupation 6 VS,J MACMA No.499 of 2022 and income of the deceased and also contended that the claim was excessive, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 08. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased Alugu Paparao, s/o late Satyam died due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1-driver of Tractor/Truck bearing NO.AP 30 V 9674/AP 30 W 3257? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation for the death of the deceased Alugu Paparao, s/o late Satyam ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. To what relief? 09. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, the 1st respondent /driver examined himself as RW.1 and one Ch.Nagamani was examined as RW.2. Exs.B1 to B4 and Exs.X1 to X6 were marked. 10. After hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondents No.3 and 4 and awarded compensation of Rs.12,48,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum and costs from the date of the petition till realization. The Tribunal further directed respondents No.3 and 4 to deposit the award amount to the credit of the O.P. within three months from the date of the award. The Tribunal also held that 7 VS,J MACMA No.499 of 2022 respondent No.4/insurance company, after payment of the compensation amount, is entitled to recover the same from respondent No.3, the owner of the vehicle. Out of the awarded amount, the 1st petitioner (wife) was entitled to Rs.6,48,500/- with interest and costs, out of which she was permitted to withdraw Rs.3,48,500/- and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in any Nationalized bank in FDR for a period of two years. The 4th petitioner was permitted to withdraw her share of Rs.2,00,000/- at once. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners (minor children) were held entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- each and the said amount were directed to be kept in FDR in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority. 11. Aggrieved by the said award, respondent No.4/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was no rash or negligent act on the part of the driver of Tractor/Truck Nos. AP 30 V 9674/AP 30 W 3257 and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself while sleeping on the sand ramp. It is further contended that the vehicle was involved in illegal transportation of sand and that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. It is also contended that the owner knowingly violated the policy conditions and therefore the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased, awarding future prospects and granting interest at 9% per annum and that the compensation awarded is excessive. 8 VS,J MACMA No.499 of 2022 12. Heard Mr.Gudi Srinivasu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.Ravi Shankar and Tota Tejeswara Rao, learned counsels for the respondents. 13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 14. The contention of the appellant is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as he was sitting near the sand ramp where sand was allegedly being transported illegally. However, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the Tribunal relied upon Ex.A1/F.I.R. and Ex.A4/charge sheet, which categorically shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The evidence on record supports the finding of the Tribunal that the driver, while reversing the tractor, dashed against the deceased and ran over him, resulting in his death. In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 15. The another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that the owner had knowingly 9 VS,J MACMA No.499 of 2022 entrusted the vehicle to such person, thereby violating the policy conditions. In support of the said contention, the Insurance Company examined R.W.2, the Junior Assistant from the RTO Office, Srikakulam, and relied upon Ex.X6. Upon considering the evidence of R.W.2 and the documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. This Court finds that the said direction is in accordance with settled principles of law and does not warrant interference. 16. With regard to the quantum of compensation, P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was working as a coolie and earnings Rs.9,000/- per month. In the absence of documentary proof regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.5,500/- per month, relying upon the notional income guidelines issued by the State Legal Services Authority and the judgment of this Court in Sri Narasappa vs. Sri Nagendra and another1. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased was taken at Rs.66,000/- (Rs.5,500/- X 12). As the deceased was self-employed and aged 37 years, the Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the 1 (M.F.A.201603/2017 dt. 10.1.2020 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka) 10 VS,J MACMA No.499 of 2022 Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi2. Thus, his annual income was arrived at Rs.92,400/- (Rs.66,000/- + 40%). Considering the number of dependents as four, 1/4th of the income of the deceased was deducted towards personal and living expenses, which comes to Rs.23,100/- per annum (Rs.92,400 – ¼). After deduction, the remaining amount is Rs.69,300/- (Rs.92,400 – Rs.23,100). Applying the relevant multiplier ‘15’ for the age group of the deceased i.e., 37 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency as Rs.10,39,500/- (Rs.69,300/- X 15). Further, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (referred supra), the claimants were entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.44,000/- towards filial consortium to the 4th petitioner and Rs.88,000/- towards parental consortium to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. Accordingly, the Tribunal, following the aforesaid decisions, rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.12,48,500/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the claimants. 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2009 ACJ 1298 11 VS,J MACMA No.499 of 2022 17. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal. 18. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.02.2026 KGR