APHC010485172022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 459/2022 Between: 1. CHOLAMANDAL MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, LEGAL OFFICE AT 302, 3 FLOOR, S.R.ARCADE, D.NO.1-2-7312, AND 1-2-63 TO 64, PARKLANE, SECUNDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK GHOISA BEGUM, W/O.SHAIK KHADER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, MUSLIM, HOUSE WIFE, DEPENDENT, RESIDING AT 66/109, NAYAB SAB STREET, RAYACHOTY, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT 2. S MOHAMMAD AVEZ, S/O.SHAIK MOHAMMAD, NOT KNOW, BUT MAJOR, (OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. AP 04 BH 8217) RESIDING AT D.NO.A-31/76-C,MAHABOOB BASHA STREET, RAYACHOTY, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum- V Additional District judge, Rayachoty, dated 26th day of March, 2022 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 2 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 pleased to condone the delay of 77 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against the decree and judgment M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum- V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, dated 26th day of March, 2022„ 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 be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 26th day of March, 2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum- V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty„ including the execution proceedings , pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A.,and pass IA NO: 3 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 permit the petitioner/respondent No.2 to withdraw the amount deposited by appellant/respondent No.1 pursuant to the order dated 11-11- 2022 made in IA.No.2 of 2022 in MACMA No.459 of 2022, pending disposal of the above appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J KRISHNA PRANEETH The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 J U D G M E N T: The present appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company challenging the order and decree dated 26.03.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2020 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner and awarded compensation of Rs.12,03,800/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred Only) as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) on account of the death of Shaik Ibrahim (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.09.2019. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased, filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of her son Shaik Ibrahim in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.09.2019 at about 08.00 p.m., opposite Shemford English Medium School on NH-40, Rayachoty- Kadapa Main Road, Kadapa District. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 25 years and was working as a driver in Kuwait and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. On 08.09.2019, while the deceased was proceeding from his house at Rayachoty to meet his sister at 4 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 Bellammandi Street, Kadapa, on his motor cycle bearing No.AP04 BH 8217, when he reached near Jamalapalli Village, opposite Shemford English Medium School, the road was under repair and, as the deceased could not notice the ditches and damages on the road, he could not control the speed of the motor cycle. As a result, the motor cycle fell on the road and the deceased fell on the road stones and sustained injuries. He was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, where the duty doctor examined him and declared him dead. It is further stated that C.K.Dinne Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.223 of 2019 under Section 304-A of IPC. It is also the case of the petitioner that the motor cycle was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and, therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, who failed to observe the ditches on the road and could not control the motor cycle. It was further contended that the rider of the motor cycle had no valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident and that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 5 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 “1. Whether the deceased met with road accident on 08.09.2019 at about 8.00 p.m., opp. to Shemford English Medium School on NH-40, Highway Road, Rayachoty to Kadapa, Kadapa District, the respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., Motorcycle bearing No.AP04 BH 8217, and insured with 2nd respondent, the rider himself drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and unable to control the speed of the motor cycle and trespassed on the ditches and fell on the road stones and died on the spot, as contended by the claimant or not? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to how much and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 6. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 7. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.12,03,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the deceased himself was riding the motor cycle belonging to the 1st respondent and that he was not a third party to the said motor cycle. It is further contended that no other vehicle was involved in the accident and, therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable against the Insurance Company. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving and fault of the deceased 6 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 himself, who was riding the motor cycle. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the owner of the motor cycle violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant supported the order of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Now, the points for consideration are: i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the respondents liable to pay compensation to the petitioner? ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation awarded? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 11. Perused the award. The sole claimant, who is the mother of the deceased, filed the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. She got herself examined as P.W.1 and deposed with regard to the nature of the accident. She categorically stated that on 08.09.2019, the deceased was proceeding at about 07.00 p.m. from his house at Rayachoty to meet his sister at Bellammandi Street, Kadapa, on his motor cycle bearing No.AP04 BH 8217. While the deceased reached near Jamalapalli Village, opposite Shemford 7 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 English Medium School on Rayachoty-Kadapa Main Road, the road was under repair and the deceased could not observe the ditches and damages on the road and, therefore, could not control the speed of the motor cycle. As a result, the motor cycle fell on the road and the deceased fell on the road stones, sustained multiple injuries and became unconscious. Thereafter, the road passers called 108 ambulance and shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, where the duty doctor examined him and declared him dead due to the accident. 12. P.W.1 also got marked Exs.A1 to A7. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7, held that the claimant could prove the factum of the accident and answered Issue No.1 holding that the respondents are liable to pay compensation. 13. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1, who is the Deputy Manager (Legal) of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, was examined and Ex.B1, insurance policy, was marked through him. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who rode the motor cycle at high speed and lost control over the vehicle and fell down and died. It is also the contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not a third party to the insured vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It is further contended that the owner of the motor cycle, i.e., the 1st respondent, violated the terms and 8 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 conditions of the policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another1, wherein a similar issue fell for consideration. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, relying upon the judgment in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2, held that where the deceased was driving a motor cycle which was borrowed from its real owner and met with an accident without involving any other vehicle, and a claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal representatives of the deceased against the real owner of the motor cycle, the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, Section 163-A of the Act would not apply where the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant also relied upon the same judgment, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed that, as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident, the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the personal accident cover, subject to the terms of the policy. 17. Admittedly, the present claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In such a case, there is no necessity for the claimant to 1 AIR 2020 Supreme Court 527 2 AIR 2009 SC 3056 9 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 prove negligence in the manner required under Section 166 of the Act. The evidence of P.W.1, coupled with Exs.A1 and A4, particularly the final report filed by C.K.Dinne Police Station, establishes the occurrence of the accident. As the deceased is no more, the case was referred as abated. 18. The only contention of the Insurance Company is that the deceased had borrowed the motor cycle which was involved in the accident and, as such, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and cannot be treated as a third party. Therefore, according to the Insurance Company, it is not liable to pay compensation. The said contention is supported by the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi and another (supra). However, in the present case, the Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, has held the respondents liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Having regard to the evidence available on record and the manner in which the accident occurred, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1 does not warrant interference. 19. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, though it is the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month by working as a driver in Kuwait prior to the accident, in the absence of any documentary proof to establish the said income, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. In the opinion of this Court, the same is reasonable and does not warrant interference. 10 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 20. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- × 12). As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of the accident, which is established from the fact that the mother of the deceased, who is the sole legal heir, filed the claim petition. In such a case, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd. 21. If the same is considered, after deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the petitioner would come to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.96,000/- - Rs.48,000/-). Applying the appropriate multiplier of „18‟ applicable to the age of 25 years, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.48,000/- × 18). 22. Apart from the said amount, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.26,800/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, which, in the opinion of this Court, are reasonable and do not warrant interference. 23. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioner would come to Rs.9,15,800/- (Rs.8,64,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.26,800/- + Rs.10,000/-). 24. Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal, in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: 11 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of estate and earnings Rs.11,52,000/- Rs.8,64,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.26,800/- Rs.26,000/- Transportation Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000 /- Total Rs.12,03,800/- Rs.9,15,800/- 25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires interference to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the claimant. 26. In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.12,03,800/- to Rs.9,15,800/-. The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.9,15,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The apportionment and other directions issued by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the extent of the reduction in compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 06.08.2026 JLV 12 VS,J MACMA No.459 of 2022 151 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 459/2022 Date: 06.08.2026 JLV