1 VS,J MACMA_512 of 2022 APHC010649262022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 512/2022 Between: 1. M/S.SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, T.P. CLAIMS, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA (NEAR MKM COLLEGE), SITAPURA, JAIPUR - 302 022, RAJASTHAN STATE. (INSURER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO. AP31 TX 3314, TRAILER BEARING NO . AP31 BB 6162) (POLICY NO . 10003/31/17/262488 VALID FROM 12-09-2016 TO 11-09-2017) ...APPELLANT AND 1. SONGA GURU SEKHAR, S/ O GURAPPA, AGED 38 YEARS, HINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, 2. SONGA LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O SONGA GURU SEKHAR, HINDU, AGED 34 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, 3. SONGA GURU SAI THARUN, S/ O SONGA GURU SEKHAR, HINDU, STUDENT, AGED 8 YEARS, REP BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E., S LAKSHMI DEVI. ALL ARE R/O D.NO. 1/39, KANNELUR VILLAGE, JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 4. GANTA PRATHAP, S/O G CHINNA PAMULETI, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O 2 VS,J MACMA_512 of 2022 D.NO. 2/107, R.PAMPALLE VILLAGE, UYYALAWADA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated.11-04-2022 in M.V.O.P.No. 98 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum- II Addl., District Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa, at Proddatur 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 136 days in filing the above MACMA against the Judgment and Decree, dated. 11-04-2022 in M.V.O.P.No. 98 / 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum- II Addl., District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardships 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 suspend the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No. 98 of 2018, dated. 11-04-2022 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum- II Addl., District Judge, Kadapa, pending disposal of the MACMA and pass such other Order or Orders in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice 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 direct the Insurance Company to deposit Award amount of Rs.12,82,600/- passed in M.V.O.P. No. 98 of 2018 dated 11.04.2022 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 3 VS,J MACMA_512 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 Vacate the Interim stay order granted I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in MACMA. No. 512 of 2022, dated 07.12.2022 by permitting the petitioners/claiments herein to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs.12,82,600/- in M.V.O.P. No. 98 of 2018 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V HEMANTH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S ARIFULLAH The Court made the following: 4 VS,J MACMA_512 of 2022 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the appellant – Insurance company challenging the award dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in M.V.O.P.No.98 of 2018 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of one Songa Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in an accident that occurred on 08.08.2017 near Railway gate, Seshareddypalli road, Jammalamadugu mandal, Kadapa district, whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,82,600/-. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants are the parents and brother of the deceased. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP21TX3314 and AP21BB6162. On 08.08.2017, while the deceased along with one Ganta Naresh Kumar was proceeding to Seshareddypalli village on the aforementioned tractor and trailer, after crossing the railway gate at about 06.30 p.m., the deceased, being driver of the said tractor and trailer, was not able to control the vehicle when buffaloes came across the road and as a result, the tractor and trailer turned turtle towards right side; Ganta Naresh Kumar sustained injuries in the incident whereas the deceased died on the spot. The incident was reported to Jammalamadugu Police Station and a case was registered in Crime No.274 of 2017 against the deceased under Sections 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, however, the case was closed as abated. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was 5 VS,J MACMA_512 of 2022 aged about 21 years as on the date of the accident and that he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month from driving. 4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. The 2nd respondent contested the claim petition by filing a detailed counter affidavit denying the contentions of the claimants. It was contended that though the subject tractor in question was registered for private purpose and the trailer for agricultural purpose, it was used for commercial purpose as on the date of accident which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also contended that the deceased had no valid driving license to drive the subject vehicle. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred on 8.8.2017 at about 6.30 P.M while the defacto complainant by name GantaNaresh Kumar along with his aunt’s son by name Songa Guru Ashok Kumar being the song of 1st and 2nd Claimants proceeding in a Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 21 TX 3314 and AP 21 BB 6162 at which time Songa Guru Ashok Kumar driving the Tractor when the defecto complainant sat on the left side of the Engine and when they are leading towards Seshareddypalle village at which time the above said driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and tried to save the buffaloes which time across the road due to which he lost control over the tractor as a result of which the Tractor and Trailer turned turtle consequent to which the defacto complainant sustained injury and driver of the Tractor i.e., Songa Guru Ashok Kumar died on the spot under the Trailer or not? 2) Whether the 2nd Respondent is liable to pay compensation since the Tractor and Trailer was driven by violating the terms of insurance policy or not? 3) Whether the Petitioner/Claimant is entitled to any compensation or not? 6 VS,J MACMA_512 of 2022 4) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The 2nd respondent got examined R.W.1 and relied on 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 the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, however, it observed that the deceased was holding a valid driving license, thus, it awarded a compensation of Rs.12,82,600/- to the claimants and made respondent Nos.1 and 2 severally liable to pay the same. Challenging the award dated 11.04.2022, the 2nd respondent/appellant filed this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. Heard Sri. V. Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri. S. Arifullah, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 strenuously contended that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.12,82,600/- as against the claim of Rs.9,00,000/- erroneously. He further contended that the tractor alone was insured with the appellant/respondent No.2 and that no premium was paid towards the insurance of the trailer which is registered only for agricultural usage. He further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent of the deceased himself and that the Tribunal ought not to have considered the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month without there being any documentary proof. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the award passed by the Tribunal in all aspects and contended 7 VS,J MACMA_512 of 2022 that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.12,82,600/- to the claimants and that the same need not be interfered with by this Court. 11. Perused the entire material available on record. Undisputedly, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 – Ganta Naresh Kumar, who was along with the deceased at the time of the accident, that after they have crossed the railway gate while proceeding to Seshareddypalli, in order to avoid the buffaloes which came across the road, the deceased lost control of the subject vehicle, leading to turtle of the vehicle towards its right side; though P.W.2 sustained injuries, the deceased died on the spot. A perusal of the entire material available on record, including the final report of the investigating officer (Ex.A.5), it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and the same view was also taken by the Tribunal while answering the issue No.1, which needs no interference. 12. With regard to issue No.2, the Tribunal relied on the evidence of the legal executive of the 2nd respondent’s insurance company – R.W.1, who filed a true copy of the insurance policy which is marked as Ex.B.2. The insurance policy – Ex.B.2 discloses that the 1st respondent is the insurer of the vehicle bearing No.AP21TX3314 for a period of one year i.e. from 12.09.2016 to the midnight of 11.09.2017. As the accident occurred on 08.08.2017, it can be said that the policy is in force as on that date. Furthermore, the deceased was holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident as can be seen from Ex.A6. As such, the Tribunal is right in holding that there is no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the 1st respondent and in fixing the liability on the 2nd respondent to pay the compensation to the claimants, considering the 8 VS,J MACMA_512 of 2022 deceased as third party to the accident. Thus, the Tribunal has answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and the same needs no interference. 13. Now, admittedly, as on the date of accident, the deceased was holding a valid driving license and the vehicle bearing No.AP21TX3314 was insured with the 2nd respondent/appellant. It is the contention of respondent No.2/appellant that the respondent No.1 had not paid any premium towards the insurance of the trailer bearing No.AP21BB6162. Time and again, the Apex Court, in catena of judgments held that no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer and when the trailer is attached to the tractor that is insured, it becomes the part of the tractor. The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortuous liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is sine quo non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a tractor, the question of insuring the trailer would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the trailer and in case of negligence driving of the tractor, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. 14. Coming to the quantum, it appears that the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- as on the date of his death, but the same was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Thus, the Tribunal relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in the year 2004 whereby the Apex Court fixed the income of the driver therein as Rs.6,000/-, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-. This Court is of the 9 VS,J MACMA_512 of 2022 opinion that a driver in the year 2017 would have earned way more than Rs.8,000/-, however, as the claimants failed to put forward any reliable evidence, the same is not altered. As per the documents filed by the claimants, the deceased was born on 10.06.1996, as such, the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was taken by the Tribunal as 20. The Tribunal, added 40% of the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects and computed the income of the deceased as Rs.11,200/- per month and after deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses, the deceased being a bachelor, the annual income of the deceased would become Rs.67,200/- [Rs.5,600/- X 12]. As per the age of the deceased, the relevant multiplier as per SarlaVerma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1 is ‘18’. Thus, Rs.12,09,600/- was fixed as compensation under the head of loss of dependency [Rs.67,200 X 18]; in addition, Rs.16,500/- was awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In total, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,82,600/- to the claimants, which is on reasonable basis and is neither excessive nor deficient as per the considered opinion of this Court. 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.98 of 2018 is on reasonable basis and the same need not be intervened by this Court. Accordingly, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 1AIR 2009 SCC3104 10 VS,J MACMA_512 of 2022 Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:24.02.2026. Gss