1 APHC010637452022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 543/2022 And CROSS OBJECTIONS NO. 10 OF 2023 1. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 543/2022 Between: 1. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, VISHRANTHI MADARAM TOWERS, NO.2/319, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI (OMR), KARAPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 097. ...APPELLANT AND 1. POKURI RANI, W/O.LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGE 34 YEARS, 2. POKURI TIRUMALA, S/O.LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGE19 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 DECLARED AS MAJOR AND RESPONDENT NO.1 MOTHER IS DISCHARGED AS THEIR GUARDIAN AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDERS DATE 28.04.2023 IN IA.NO.2 AND 3/2023. 3. POKURI LAKSHMI DEEPIKA, D/O.LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGE 13 YEARS, 4. POKURI RAJAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 61 YEARS, (RESPONDENTS 3 BEING MINOR REP, BY THEIR MOTHER- 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN AS NEXT FRIEND) ALL PETITIONERS ARE R/O.KATTUBADI PALEM VILLAGE AND POST, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM 2 5. G VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/ O. NARASINGA RAO, OWNER CUM DRIVER OF CAR NO. AP 27 BK 4905, DOOR NO.2-46, PERIDEPI POST AND VILLAGE, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST-523 273 DISTRICT-523 271. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2. CROSS OBJECTIONS NO. 10 OF 2023 1. POKURI RANI, W/O.LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGE 38 YEARS, 2. POKURI TIRUMALA, S/O.LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGE 19 YEARS. 3. POKURI LAKSHMI DEEPIKA, D/O.LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGE 17 YEARS, 4. POKURI RAJAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 65 YEARS, (CROSS OBJECTOR NO.3 BEING MINOR, REP. BY HER MOTHER OBJECTOR NO.1 AS NEXT FRIEND) ...CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4: AND 1. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, VISHRANTHI MADARAM TOWERS, NO.2/319, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI (OMR), KARAPAKHAM, CHENNAI-600 097. … RESPONDENT/APPELLANT. 2. G VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/O. NARASINGA RAO, OWNER CUM DRIVER OF CAR NO. AP 27 BK 4905, R/O NO.2-46, PERIDEPI POST AND VILLAGE, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST-523 273. … RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.5. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 543/2022 And CROSS OBJECTIONS NO. 10 OF 2023 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) No.543 of 2022 has been preferred by the appellant/ 2nd respondent – insurance company challenging the Order/Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, in M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2018 dated 18.07.2022, wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.24,18,000/- as against the claim of Rs.30,00000/-. For the above appeal the Respondents No.1 to 4 filed cross objections No.10 of 2023. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellant in MACMA No.543 of 2022 and 2nd Respondent in Cross Objections No.10 of 2023 as 2nd respondent; and Respondents No.1 to 5 in MACMA No.543 of 2022 and cross objectors No.1 to 4 in Cross Objections No.10 of 2023 as Petitioners; and 5th respondent in MACMA No.543 of 2022 and 2nd respondent in Cross Objections No.10 of 2023 as 1st respondent. 2. M.V.O.P.No.157 of 2018 is filed by the petitioners under section 166 (1)(C) of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- along with 4 subsequent interest and costs for the death of Pokuri Krishna Rao in a motor vehicle accident on 29.06.2018 3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.291 of 2016 are that – on 29.06.2018 in the afternoon while the deceased Krishna Rao was returning from Vennur village to Kattubadivaripalem on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 AF 2455, in the meantime one car bearing No.AP 27 BK 4905 driven by its driver in a high speed and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, due to which, he received fatal injuries and fell in the canal beside the road in between Kattubadivaripalem to Vennur R & B Road. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole, and subsequently he was referred to KIMS Hospital, Ongole, wherein he was succumbed to injuries at 19.50 hours on the same day. The Police, Kondepi police station registered a case in Cr.No.57/2018 U/Sec. 304-A IPC, against the Driver of Car bearing No.AP 27 BK 4905 and investigated into. i. At the time of accident, deceased was aged about 38 years, hale and healthy and getting income of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- per annum by doing cultivation and maintaining two tobacco barns and contributing all his earnings to the maintenance and welfare of his family. It is further contended that their family owned Ac.25.00 of land, deceased used to raise commercial crops like tobacco, Bengal Gram, Mirchi etc., Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors and they are studying First year intermediate and 10th class respectively at Vijayawada and 5 Kandukur. Deceased was only son to the Petitioner No.4 and he is sole bread winner of the family. ii. Respondent No.1 is Driver-cum-Owner and Respondent No.2 is insurer of Car bearing No.AP27 BK 4905. Hence, Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the Petitioners. 4. Respondent No.1/Driver-cum-owner of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 27 BK 4905 filed counter, denying the allegations made in the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the deceased at the time of accident and contended that deceased was driving his motorcycle running from Vennur village to Kattubadipalem village, dashed against the Car (crime vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and there is no rash and negligence on the part of Respondent No.1. If the Hon'ble Tribunal awards any compensation to the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 being insurer of the crime vehicle is liable to pay the same and prayed to dismiss the petition, with costs against this Respondent. 5. Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed counter, denying the allegations made in the petition with regard to the date, time, place, mode and manner of accident and also denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further denied the contention of petitioners that deceased met with accident due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing No.AP 27 BK 4905 by Respondent No.1 and contended that as accident occurred due to rash and 6 negligent driving of deceased, so insurer of said motorcycle is proper and necessary parties to the claim petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended that driver of the crime vehicle has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, the vehicle has no valid registration and insurance policy. It is further contended that Respondent No.1/owner-cum driver of the car was colluded with petitioners, hence he did not report the accident to this Respondent with a view to cause loss, hence this Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. It is further contended that Respondent No.2/insurance company seeks protection U/Sec.149 and 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent, with costs. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the Tribunal:- 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing NOAP 27 BK 4905? 2) Whether deceased Pokuri Krishna Rao died in the road accident? 3) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, from whom and what amount? 5) To what relief? 7. During course of trial, 1st petitioner herself examined as P.W.1, eyewitness to the accident by name Ravulapalli Sreenu examined as P.W.2, 7 mother of the deceased (4th petitioner herein) Pokuri Rajamma examined as P.W.3 and got marked Ex.A1 – Attested copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.57/2018 of Kondepi Police Station, Ex.A2 - Attested copy of Inquest Report, Ex.A3 - Attested copy of PME Report, Ex.A4 - Attested copy of MVI Report, Ex.A5 - Attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A6 - Copy of Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of deceased Krisha Rao to an extent of Ac.3.90 cents at Narasingolu Village. Ex.A7 - Copy of Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Petitioner No.1 for the lands situated at Vennur Village to an extent of Ac.02.32 cents,Ex.AB - Copy of Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Petitioner No.4 for the lands situated at Vennur Village to an extent of Ac 11.44 cents, Ex A9 - Copy of Title Deed and Pattadar Passbook issued in the name of Petitioner No.4 for the lands situated at Narsingolu Village to an extent of Ac.03.91 1/2 cents, Ex A10 - Copy of Tobacco Farmer Passbook in the name of Petitioner No.1, Ex.A.11 - Copy of Tobacco Farmer Passbook in the name of Petitioner No.4, Ex.A.12 - Tobacco Sales Ledger copy issued by Tobacco Board for the tobacco sold by deceased and Petitioner No.1 in the year 2018. Ex.A.13 - Tobacco Sales Ledger copy issued by Tobacco Board for the tobacco sold by deceased in the year 2017, Ex.A.14 - Tobacco Sales Ledger copy issued by Tobacco Board for the tobacco sold by deceased in the year 2016, Ex.A.15 - Tobacco Sales Ledger copy issued by Tobacco Board for the tobacco sold by deceased in the year 2015, Ex.A.16 - Tobacco Sales Ledger copy issued by Tobacco Board for the tobacco sold by deceased in the year 2015, Ex.A17 - 8 Tobacco Sales Ledger copy issued by Tobacco Board for the tobacco sold by Petitioner No.4 in the year 2018, Ex.A18 - copy of Tobacco Sales Ledger issued by Tobacco Board for the tobacco sold by Petitioner No.4 in the year 2017, Ex.A.19 - copy of Tobacco Sales Ledger issued by Tobacco Board for the tobacco sold by Petitioner No.4 in the year 2016, Ex.A.20 - Tobacco Sales Ledger copy issued by Tobacco Board for the tobacco sold by Petitioner No.4 in the year 2015; and Ex.A21 - copy of Gram Storage Bond issued by Venkateswara Enterprises (Multi Commodity Cold Storage), dt. 18.02.2018. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of Respondents. 8. Upon hearing both counsel, upon perusing the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of petitioners in part by awarding Rs.24,18,000/- as compensation together with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization, together with proportionate costs, directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of order. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order/award, the 2nd respondent insurance company has preferred the MACMA No.543 of 2022 on the grounds that the Tribunal wrongly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month without any proof of income and adding future prospectus at 40% to the said income which is unreasonable, unjust and contrary to the law, 9 though the lands possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs and there is no deprivation of income and wrongly awarded compensation of Rs.24,18,000/- . Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned decree and Order dated 18.07.2022 in MVOP No.157 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, MACT –cum- Principal District Judge, Ongole. In the above appeal, the petitioners No.1 to 4 filed cross objections on the ground that the 4th petitioner being mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation under the head of filial consortium and that the deceased was getting income of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- per annum by doing cultivation and maintaining two tobacco barons, in-spite of the same, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,44,000/- per annum. 10. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and cross objectors, perused the material in record. 11. On perusal of the award, it can be observed that in support of the case of the claimants, claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. She also got examined P.W.2, who is the eyewitness to the said incident, who categorically deposed that on 29.06.2018 while he was going to Kattubadipalem from Vennur and reached 2 KMs away from Kattubadipalem near Devudi Manyam lands at about 03.00 p.m., the deceased was going ahead on his motorcycle towards 10 Kattubadipalem village and at that time, one car bearing No.AP 27 BK 4905 came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against motorcycle of the deceased, resultant which he sustained multiple injuries and fell in the canal on roadside. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.5, in the absence of rebuttal evidence from respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Tribunal held that on 29.06.2018 at 03.00 p.m. the deceased met with accident, sustained fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment at KIMS Hospital, Ongole, on the same day at 07.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AP 27 BK 4905 by respondent No.1. 12. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was aged about 38 years and used to earn Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- per annum. In support of the said claim, they also got examined P.W.3, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed with regard to the earnings of the deceased by doing agriculture and also possessing Ac.25.00 cents of land and in support of her contention, she also relied on Exs.A.6 to A.21. But, however, the Tribunal considering the fact that during the course of cross-examination P.W.3 herself admitted that Exs.A.17 to A.20 pertains to her and after the death of her husband, she is also residing with the family of deceased and her son used to cultivate her lands and she does not know whether her son was paying income tax or not and also the fact that as the agricultural land is intact and even in the absence of the deceased, the claimants are getting income from the subject land, 11 the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, annual income would come to Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.12,000 x 12). 13. Considering the age of the deceased as 36-40 years, 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 annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.2,01,600 (Rs.1,44,000+57,600). As there are 4 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.1,51,200/-. (Rs.2,01,600 – Rs.50,400). After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. 15 for the age group of 36 – 40 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 (Rs.1,51,200 X 15) Rs.22,68,000/-. 14. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spouse consortium, Rs.80,000/- towards parental consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure as per the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in “National 1 2018 ACJ 2782 2 2009 ACJ 1298 12 Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi3”. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.24,18,000/- to the claimants. 15. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.24,18,000/- 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. Now, coming to cross-objections filed by the claimants, though it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was having Ac.25.00 cents of land and used to earn Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/-, this Court is of the opinion that there will be no loss of income derived from the agricultural land as the said land is intact. In such case, there is nothing wrong in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. Though the claimants got examined P.W.3 in support of possessing Ac.25.00 cents of land. However, P.W.3 is none other than the mother of the deceased, who categorically admitted that Exs.A.17 to A.20 pertains to her and after the death of the deceased, she is residing with family of the deceased. It can also be observed that the claimants failed to examine any third party in support of their case. In such case, this Court does not find any error committed by the Tribunal in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. However, on perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that though the claimant No.4 is the mother of 3 2018 ACJ 2782 13 the deceased, the Tribunal failed to award any amount under the head of filial consortium. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.40,000/-. 17. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal vide MACMA No.543 of 2022 is dismissed and the Cross Objections No.10 of 2023 filed by the claimants is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.24,18,000/- to Rs.24,58,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 03.03.2026. 14 253 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 543/2022 And CROSS OBJECTIONS NO. 10 OF 2023 DATED 03.03.2026 KS