APHC010040282019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 77/2019 Between: 1. NICO LTD, NELLORE ...APPELLANT AND 1. P C KISTAIAH, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 To condone the delay of 14 days fin filing the appeal against the Decree and order dated 11.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.635/2016 on the file of before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cu;m - III Addl. Dist Judge, at Nellore. IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 To stay of all further proceedings of the decree and order dated 11.10.2018 passed fin M.V.O.P. 635/2016 on the file of the before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal III Addl. District Judge, Nellore. Counsel for the Appellant: 2 TCDS,J MACMA_77_2019 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. C SUBODH The Court made the following: 3 TCDS,J MACMA_77_2019 JUDGMENT: National Insurance Company filed the present appeal aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.635 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded, apart from raising other grounds. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioners was that on 23.11.2014 Pakam Veera Raghavaiah aged 35 years, (herein after referred to as deceased) was going on cycle on some personal work. When he reached Lingayapalem Cross road centre, Muthukur Village and Mandal, the respondent No.1 came on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 26 BA 3128 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from behind. As a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained head injury and died on spot. The deceased was shifted to A.C.S.R Government Medical College, Nellore for post mortem examination and later body was handed over to his family members. In view of the sudden demise of Pakam Veera Raghavaiah, the claimants i.e., son and parents of the deceased approached the Tribunal with the above 4 TCDS,J MACMA_77_2019 mentioned petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum. A Case in Cr.No.162 of 2014 was registered on the file of the Muthukur Police Station under section 304-A Indian Penal Code (For short I.P.C) against the respondent No.1, later said crime was investigated into and charge sheet was filed against respondent No.1. During the pendency of the claim petition, the respondent No.1 was expired, his wife was brought on record as legal representative. Though notice was served on the respondent No.3, she remained exparte before the Tribunal. 3. The respondent No.2 insurance company filed counter interalia denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was further contented that the policy number mentioned in the claim petition was not tallied with the number in the actual policy issued. It was further contended that the rider of the motor cycle had no valid driving license an on the date of the accident and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It was further averred that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive and the rate of interest was to be restricted to 6% per annum as per the guidelines of R.B.I. With the above pleadings, the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5 TCDS,J MACMA_77_2019 4. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and eye witnesses to the accident were examined as PWs’ 2 & 3. The petitioners marked documents in Exhibit A1 to A4. On the other hand the insurance company examined RW.1 to RW.3 and marked Exhibit B1 & B2. After appreciating the evidence on record and enquiry, the Tribunal by order under challenge, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.6,26,000/- together with the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of the deposit by fastening liability as respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by Insurance Company. 5. Heard, Smt. S.A.V Rathnam, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Dinakar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri.C Subodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Since the respondent No.5 remained exparte before the Tribunal, this Court proceeded with the appeal. Perused the material available on record. 6. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the rider of the motor cycle had no valid driving license as on the date of the accident. In support of her contention she placed reliance on the evidence adduced by RW.2 6 TCDS,J MACMA_77_2019 & RW.3. RW.2 was Motor Vehicle Inspector, deposed that as per his investigation, the driver of the motor vehicle was not having valid driving license. However, during the cross examination he categorically admitted that he has not examined the rider of the motor cycle personally and he was deposing as per the record. Based on the evidence adduced by RW.2, the Tribunal had come to conclusion that RW.2 did not conduct any inquiry nor examined the rider of the vehicle and held that the evidence of RW.2 was not trust worthy. Furthermore, the insurance company also examined Head Constable of Muthukur Police station as RW.3. A perusal of his evidence would show that except the oral testimony of RW.3, nothing was placed on record, so as to establish that the rider of the motor cycle had no valid driving license. Having considered the evidence of RW.2 & RW.3, the tribunal rejected the contention of the insurance company as there was no concrete evidence placed by it. Further, nothing prevented the insurance company to examine the rider of the motor cycle during the trial. Admittedly, no steps have taken as such. Therefore, the contention of the insurance company, that the rider of the motor cycle had no driving license as on the date of the accident, cannot be believed and the same is here by rejected. 7 TCDS,J MACMA_77_2019 7. Further the counsel for the appellant would also submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive in as much as while fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal did not deduct any amount toward his personal expenses. In this regard a perusal of the order under challenge would show that while computing the compensation, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, Tribunal did not deduct any amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, however, the counsel for the respondent/claimants would submit that the Tribunal did not fix the income of the deceased as per the pleadings and evidence let in. He would further submit that it was the specific case of the petitioner that the deceased was mason by avocation as on the date of the accident. Further the petitioners and the witnesses on their behalf also deposed the same in their evidence. However, the Tribunal without appreciating the same in its proper perspective had erroneously fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the respondent would further submit that the accident was occurred during the year 2014 and the notional income of a coolie was Rs.200/- per day, and if the same is taken into consideration, income of the deceased was to be fixed as Rs.6,600/- per month. 8 TCDS,J MACMA_77_2019 Though the counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the same on the ground that the daily wage worker will not have work throughout the month and if the daily wage was to be taken into consideration the same is to be restricted for a period of 26 days per month. This Court is not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.6,600/- per month and accordingly the compensation is computed as under: Description of the Head Amount Entitled in Rupees Net Annual Income Rs.6,000 x12=Rs.72,000/- Future Prospects (for the age of 35 years) Rs.28,800/- (i.e., 40% of the Income) Total Annual Income Rs.1,00,800/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd ) Rs.33,600/- Total loss of dependency Rs.67,200/- Multiplier of 16 for the age 35 years Rs.10,75,200/- (67,200 X 16) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000x3 = Rs.1,20,000/- Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.12,25,200/- 9 TCDS,J MACMA_77_2019 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed. Further in view of the enhancement of the compensation from Rs.6,26,000/- to Rs.12,25,200/-the appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.12,25,200/-together with the interest @ 7.5% per annum within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Further the claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J 12.08.2026 CMK 10 TCDS,J MACMA_77_2019 110 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA NO.77 of 2019 12.08.2026 CMK