1 APHC010017672019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 24/2019 Between: United Indiainsurance Co Ltd., ...APPELLANT AND P Ramachandra Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SUDHEER 2. NAGESWARA RAO V 2 The Court made the following judgment: The United India Insurance Company Limited, filed the present appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal through its order dated 26.09.2018, in MVOP No.156 of 2015, on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumX Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners are the husband and daughter of the deceased-P.Jayamma. It is the case of the petitioners that on 24.08.2014, while the deceased was walking on the road, the 1st respondent/driver cum owner of the offending car bearing registration No.AP03/V.4786, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on road and sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 25.08.2014, at about 1.33 pm. A case in Cr.No.63 of 2014, was registered on the file of the Traffic Police Station, Tirupati. The said crime was later investigated into 3 and charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent under Section 304-A IPC and Sections 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. In view of the demise of the deceased, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, contending that the deceased used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month by working in hotels and the entire income was being contributed towards the family. 4. The 1st respondent/driver cum owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent/insurance company, resisted the claim of the petitioners, denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the age of the deceased as per Ex.B1, Xerox copy of the ration card, was 55 years, as on 08.01.2006. Whereas, the petitioners contended that the age of the deceased was 48 years as on the date of the accident. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. With the above pleadings, it was contended that the 2nd respondent/insurance company was not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioners. 4 5. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the husband of the deceased was examined as PW.1, and the daughter of the deceased was examined as PW.2. One Sri P.Chandrasekhar Reddy, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW.3. They have also marked copies of documents in Exs.A1 to A6. On the other hand, apart from marking the Xerox copies of ration card and insurance policy as Exs.B1 & B2, the 2nd respondent examined Smt. T.Sripriya, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company as RW.1. Considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioners, the Tribunal by impugned award, granted compensation of Rs.4,48,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit by fastening the liability on respondent Nos.1 & 2, jointly and severally. Questioning the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is preferred by the insurance company. 6. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Vutla, counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri S.Charan, counsel representing Sri V.Nageswarao, counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2/claimants. As seen from the cause title, the 3rd respondent is not necessary party. 5 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellants while not disputing with the income fixed by the Tribunal would contend that the age of the deceased was 63 years as on the date of the accident by placing reliance on Ex.B1-ration card issued by the competent authority. He would further submit that as per Ex.B1 the age of the deceased was 55 years as on 08.01.2006, on which date the ration card was issued. If the same is taken into consideration, the age of the deceased was 63 years as on the date of the accident. Despite the same, the Tribunal ignoring the copy of Ex.B1, came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of the accident. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 would submit that Ex.B1 cannot be taken into consideration, inasmuch as no original copy of the same was filed before the Tribunal. Apart from the same, he would further submit that the person who has issued Ex.B1 was not examined so as to prove the genuineness of the Ex.B1 before the Tribunal. Non-examination of the competent authority who issued Ex.B1 is fatal to the case and therefore the same cannot be looked into while determining the age of the deceased. 6 9. Apart from the same, the counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 & 2 would submit that the Tribunal after taking into consideration of the Ex.A1 to A4, i.e., copies of FIR, Inquest report, charge sheet and post mortem, came to the conclusion that the age of the deceased was 55 years, as on the date of the accident. Though the counsel for the appellant has stated that the Tribunal had ignored Ex.B1, as rightly pointed out by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, the Tribunal had fixed the age of the deceased as 55 years by placing reliance on Exs.A1 to A4. 10. As already observed supra, the Insurance Company failed to examine the officer who has issued Ex.B1. In the absence of the same, Ex.B1 cannot be relied on, especially when it is a Xerox copy. As rightly pointed out by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, the Tribunal, after taking into consideration of the facts of the case, coupled with the Ex.A1 to A4, has rightly fixed the age of the deceased as 55 years and accordingly computed the compensation. 11. Since the counsel for the appellants has only disputed the age of deceased, in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and as observed above, this Court does not find any illegality in 7 the order under challenge. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.24.07.2026 DSB 8 82 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.24 of 2019 Date 24.07.2026 U DSB