FUTURE GENERALLI INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. Y PRATAP

3. D SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. SUBBA RAO, CAR OWNER, D.NO.49-438/2, CHINTAL BABU NAGAR, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT - 500 054.

4. K SUDHARSAN REDDY, S/O. HANUMANTH REDDY, CAR DRIVER, D.NO. 2-64, YETHAM, KODAIR, MEHBOOB NAGAR, TELANGANA - 509 102. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2016, dated 13.04.2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents the Order and Decree passed to set-aside topleased 2 VS,J MACMA No.540 of 2022 Claims Tribunal - cum - X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, and may be pleased to 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 grant interim stay all further proceedings including execution of the Award in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2016, dated 13.04.2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Appellant:

1. NAGUMANTRI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ADARSHITHA KILARU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J MACMA No.540 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The appeal is preferred by the appellant/insurance company challenging the order and decree dated 13.04.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, wherein the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) petitioners/claimants, as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Y.Eswara Prasad Royal, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.10.2015.

02. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

03. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: On 22.10.2015 at 9.30 a.m., the 3rd respondent, while driving the car bearing No.AP-28-CF-9959, in a rash and negligent manner on the left side of the road, hit the motorcycle on which the deceased and the 1st petitioner were proceeding near Syndicate Bank, Mukkavaripalle Cross, Obulavaripalle Mandal, on Koduru–Rajampeta State Highway. In the said accident, both sustained injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. A case in Crime No.87 of 2015 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC was registered by Obulavaripalle Police Station. 4 VS,J MACMA No.540 of 2022

04. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was aged about five years, hale and healthy, and the only son of the petitioners. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the 3rd respondent, who was employed under the 1st respondent, and the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. Hence, they claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

05. Before the Tribunal, the 1st and 3rd respondents were set ex parte.

06. The 2nd respondent–Insurance Company filed its counter denying the material allegations in the claim petition. It contended that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, who was driving in a zigzag manner at high speed, without possessing a valid driving licence, and in violation of traffic rules, thereby causing the accident. It was further contended that the policy relied upon by the claimants is false and fabricated, and that no valid insurance policy was issued in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the alleged offending vehicle. According to the 2nd respondent, the claim petition has been filed in collusion between the petitioners and the 1st respondent with intent to obtain wrongful gain on the basis of a forged policy. It also contended that the deceased was a minor and a non-earning member, and that the compensation claimed is excessive. The petition is further stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident. Hence, it prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against it. 5 VS,J MACMA No.540 of 2022

07. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of 3rd respondent while driving the Car bearing No.AP 28 CF 9959?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from whom?

3. To what relief?

08. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with the following terms: “In the result, this petition is allowed with costs directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakh and seventy thousand only) with proportionate costs. The respondents 1 to 3 shall pay the same within one month with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim till the date of payment. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Out of the above compensation, the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- with costs and proportionate interest and the 2nd petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,70,000/- with accrued interest thereon. On deposit both the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as the compensation is for the accident that took place in the year 2016. “ 6 VS,J MACMA No.540 of 2022

10. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the policy marked as Ex.B1 was valid only from

29.09.2014 to 28.09.2015, and was not in force on the date of the accident i.e., 22.10.2015. It is further contended that Ex.A3 is a fabricated policy bearing the same number, and the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the Insurance Company.

11. Heard Mr.N.Nageswararao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Smt.Adarshitha Kilaru, learned counsel for the claimants..

12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT:

13. On a careful perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that though the 2nd respondent–Insurance Company has taken a specific plea that the policy relied upon by the claimants is a fabricated one and that no policy was in force as on the date of the accident, it has failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate the said contention. Except marking Ex.B1, no independent evidence was produced to establish that Ex.A3 policy is false or fabricated. In the absence of any such proof, the plea of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company, and the said finding does not call for any interference by this Court. 7 VS,J MACMA No.540 of 2022

14. With regard to quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about five (5) years as on the date of the accident and was a non-earning member. In such cases, the determination of compensation is governed by settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another1, while dealing with the claim for the death of minor child aged about seven (7) years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering earlier decisions in Puttamma and others vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another2 and R.K.Malik and another vs. Kiran and others3 and Kisan Gopal and others vs. Lala and others4, fixed the notional income of non-earning minor at Rs.25,000/- per annum, taking into account inflation, devaluation of the rupee and rising cost of living. By applying the multiplier ‘15’ as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency, apart from Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal, following the aforesaid principles, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,70,000/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 1 2022 (1) ALD 74 (SC) 2 2013 (15) SCC 45 3 2009 (14) SCC (1) 4 2013 (6) ALD 59 (SC) 8 VS,J MACMA No.540 of 2022

15. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal.

16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 02.03.2026 KGR ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA