APHC010658902017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1388/2017 Between: 1. BHUKYA NIRMALA, KRISHNA DIST AMP 3 OTHERS, W/O LATE RAMESH BABU RAMESH NAI HINDU, AGE 26 YRS HOUSE WIFE, R O D NO 1 246 TANDA BAZAR, KEEL ESPURAM, JUPUDI VILLAGE,LBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST,. AP 2. BHUKYA GUNASEKHAR,, S/O LATE RAMESH BABU @RAMESH NAIK HINDU, AGE 5 YRS , BEING MINOR. REP BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT BHUKYA NIRMALA AS THE GUARDIAN, HOUSE WIFE, R/O D NO: 1-246,TANDA BAZAR, KEELESPURAM, H/O JUPUDI VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST,. AP 3. BHUKYA SREEKAR", S/O LATE RAMESH BABU @RAMESH NAIK HINDU, AGE 4 YRS , BEING MINOR, REP BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT BHUKYA NIRMALA AS THE GUARDIAN, HOUSE WIFE, R/O D NO: I -246,TANDA BAZAR, KEELESPURAM, H/O JUPUDI VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST,. AP 4. BHUKYA SETHAMMA, W/O LATE BALU , HINDU, AGED 52 YRS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O D NO:1-246,TANDA BAZAR, KEELESPURAM, H/O JUPUDI VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST,. AP (CLAIMANTS) ...APPELLANT(S) AND 2 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017 1. SIRI TECON HYDERABAD ANR, REP BY MR KOMMARAJU JAYA, M/S SENTINI CENNICA PVT LTD,. PLOT NO 1229 ROAD NO 60 ,JUBLI HILLS, HYDERABAD-500034 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DIVISIONAL OFFICE-II, POST BOX NO 774, BESIDES HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, PATAMATA, KRISHNA DIST, VIJAYAWADA 520010 AP ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in MVOP 627 of 2013, dt 25.1.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court Cum XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada by allowing appeal and decreeing M V 0 P 627 of 2013 as prayed for compensation of RS 17,00,000/- with costs and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J DILEEP KUMAR 2. NARESH BYRAPANENI The Court made the following: 3 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017 JUDGMENT: Heard, Ms.Deepa, learned counsel representing Mr.T.S.Rayulu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. 1. In pursuance to the orders of this Court, personal notice was permitted to be served on 1st respondent and accordingly, notice was served on the 1st respondent, who is the owner. Despite service of notice, none present. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte all along. 2. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the Order and Decree passed in M.V.O.P. No.627 of 2013, dated 25.01.2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. The parties are arrayed as they are in the present appeal. 4. The conspectus of facts leading to the filing of the case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada (in short “Tribunal”), is as follows: The claim petition before the Tribunal was filed under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- for the death of their son, who died on 28.09.2013. The accident was occurred on 19.09.2013 at about 09.00 p.m., while he was proceeding towards Ibrahimpatnam from Chillakallu village, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP28TB5072. 5. The deceased was admitted in the hospital and in support of the same, medical bills were filed and marked as Ex.A9. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is the copy of alteration memo, Ex.A3 is the copy of inquest report, Ex.A4 is the copy of post-mortem report, Ex.A5 is the copy of driving license 4 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017 of one Andhraiah, Ex.A6 is the copy of registration certificate of the lorry, Ex.A7 is the copy of insurance policy of the lorry, Ex.A8 is the copy of the driving license of the deceased, Ex.A10 is the copy of charge sheet in Crime No.227 of 2013 on the file of Kanchikacherla Police Station and Ex.A11 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector‟s report. 6. 6. Before the Tribunal, the claimants asserted that the deceased used to get Rs.10,000/- per month and he was aged about 28 years by the date of accident and he used to spend his entire earnings for the welfare of the family and the mother, wife and maternal uncle spent Rs.1,50,000/- on the deceased‟s treatment for 9 days and Rs.50,000/- towards miscellaneous expenditure. 7. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP28TB5072 and the driver of the lorry having valid driving license, and also the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident. 8. The 1st respondent remained ex parte, while the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition seeking compensation. Refuting the contentions in the petition, it is stated that the claimants have to prove that the conditions of the insurance policy were not violated, and they were put to strict proof and also the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has drawn the attention of the Court to the Award passed on 25.01.2017 vehemently contending that the Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence in a proper and perspective manner, and was misdirected in rejecting the case for compensation only on the ground that the claimants could not prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Resultantly, the petition for compensation was dismissed. 5 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017 10. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the Award, wherein it is categorically stated that the FIR and the charge sheet were filed, clearly stating that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving and apart from the same, evidence was also marked on behalf of the claimants to support that the accident was happened due to rash and negligent driving. But the Tribunal erred in holding that RW1 did not depose that the deceased died due to multiple injuries sustained in the accident. 11. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 14 of the Award regarding the evidence of Ex.A11, which is the Motor Vehicle Inspector‟s report, which reveals that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle, and she argued that the same has to be construed that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Mere not making any suggestion cannot be construed as accepting that there is no rash and negligent driving. 12. Learned counsel further argued that it is a fact that the deceased lost his life in the accident, and on the other hand, there was no contra evidence or any oral or documentary evidence by the Insurance Company to show that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving. But the Tribunal has hastily drawn its contention and dismissed the claim against the claimants. 13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company while marking his arguments, has drawn the attention of the Court to the exhibits filed and stated that the evidence placed by the claimants does not reveal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants also does not support the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimants and requested the Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants. 6 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017 14. Owing to the arguments advanced on behalf of the claimants as well as the respondents/Insurance Company, this Court is of the opinion that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant needs attention and is also of the view that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence placed in support of their claim particularly the Ex.A11, which is the Motor Vehicle Inspector‟s report and also the charge sheet filed in support. The arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that when the claimants approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, it is the burden of the claimants to establish the negligence of the driver or the owner of the vehicle, and in that absence, the claim of the claimants cannot be accepted and asserted that the order passed by the Tribunal needs no interference. 15. As outlined above, this Court finds that the evidence was not properly appreciated and particularly in cases of Motor Vehicle Accidents, which is beneficial piece of legislation, need to be considered in a liberal view and strict adherence to the evidence or other laws need not to be adopted to. dehors the evidence filed in support of the claimants clearly indicates that the accident, in fact, occurred due to rash and negligent driving and this Court holds that the claimants are entitled to compensation since the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, i.e., lorry bearing No.AP28TB5072. 16. When the accident occurred was conclusive that due to rash and negligent driving was proved, there would be no reason to disbelieve Ex.A1 (FIR), Ex.A4 (post-mortem report), Ex.A10 (charge sheet) and Ex.A11 (Motor Vehicle Inspector‟s report). The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Bai Prajapati and Others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others1, held at paragraph No.6 as follows: “6. As far as the accident, it is seen that there is no dispute since a Murg report was made on intimation from the hospital which is produced as 1 (2025) 9 SCC 414 7 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017 Annexure P-1 in which it was recorded that a person involved in a road accident was admitted to the hospital who died at 12:30 am. The accident is said to have occurred at 6 pm and the murg report was on the same day. The mere fact that PW-2, the eyewitness did not approach the police cannot be a reason to find the delay in FIR to be suspicious. The accident itself having been proved and a Murg report filed, definitely investigation would be carried out. We see from the FIR that based on the Murg report an investigation was carried out in the course of which the eyewitness was detected and Annexure P-2 FIR was registered. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the FIR, especially since the insurance company did not make any attempt to examine the investigating officer before the Tribunal.” 17. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the specific plea of the claimants is that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and used to spend towards the welfare of the family. This Court noticed that in the entire pleadings, there is no supportive evidence to verify the claim of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and the Court accepts the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. The rulings of the Constitutional Courts is that, in the case of coolie/contract labourers, the Court has fixed the earning as Rs.7,000/- per month. But in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court takes Rs.5,000/- per month as income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.5,000 x 12 = Rs.60,000/- per annum. 1/4th of the annual income is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, which finally derived as Rs.45,000/- (Rs.60,000 x ¼). Applying the multiplier „17‟ as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another2, the compensation comes to Rs.45,000 x 17 = Rs.7,65,000/-. An amount of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is fixed. The claimants placed on record the medical bills amounting to Rs.1,35,150.24/-, which cannot be denied, need to be also awarded to the claimants. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.7,65,000/- + 70,000/- + 1,35,150.24 = Rs.9,70,150.24/-. 18. In fine, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the Order and Decree, dated 25.01.2017, in 2 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) 8 GTK, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2017 M.V.O.P.No.627 of 2013, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, granting compensation of Rs.9,70,150.24/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same in equal shares. The shares of minor claimants shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority, and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the 1st claimant. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequitur, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date: 02.01.2026 BMS