The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M. A.C.M. A.NO.27 6 0F 2015 TUDGMENT: The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-lnsurance Company agglieved by the irnpugned order, dated 07.03.2014 n M.V.O.P.No.567 o{ 201.2 passeci by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Triburral-cum-Addl.District Judge at Khammam (for short, 'Tribunal') and thereby, seeking to set aside the impugned order.

2. Heard Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company and Sri Repakula Nagcswara Rao, learned counsel for the respontL:nt No.1/claim petitioner

3. The apptllant herein is the respondent No.2-ir-rsurarlce company, respondent No.1 herein is the claim petitioner and respondent No.2 herein is the on,ner of the crime vehicle before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribttnal

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is that on

29.01..2070, K.Butchaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') along with his family members boarded an auto bearing regish'ation No.AP- 20-Y-9980 to go to Penuganchiprolu temple in order to attend a function and when the auto reached at about 8.00 a.m., between Lachagudem, I I I 2 Raghavapuram villages, the driver of auto drove the auto in rash and negligent manner and applied sudden breaks in order to avoid accident with a motor cycle coming in opposite direction and as a result, auto turned turtle and the deceased received severe bleeding injuries and died while undergoing treatment in Govt. Hospital, Khammam on the same day at 3.00 p.m. The Police, Chinthakani Police Station registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2010 against the driver of crime vehicle and filed charge sheet.

5. The claimants filed MVOP No.567 of 2072 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of deceased. According to the petitioner, the deceased was aged 55 years, was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum by doing agriculture and on account of said accident, she lost her husband and also suffered mental agony.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations in the claim petition as regards the accident to the deceas ed, age, avocation and income of the deceased' It was further contended that the owner and insurer of the auto are necessary parties to the claim petition and in their absence, the claim petition is not maintainable and the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and praved to dismiss the claim petition. 7 Basing or.r thc above pleadings,, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial

1. \A/hether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Auto bearing No.AP-20-y-9980 by its driver ?

2. \Arhether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents,,

3. To what rclief ?

8. On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2-insurance company, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to 85 were marked and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through RW.2.

9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and documents placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,39,000 / - along w,ith interest @ 75% per annum.

10. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for insurance company submitted that Tribunal has not properly 4 appreciated the evidence placed on record and came to crroneous conclusion that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of crime vehicle; that Tribunal failed to see that the insured and insurer of the motor cycle are the proper and necessary parties for proper adjudication of the matter and therefore, claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident ancl the clrivcr rvas chargcd under Section 181 of M.V.AcU that the crime vehicle was overloaded with passengers more than its seating capacity at the time of accident; that the Tribur-ral erred in adopting multiplier of '9', which is on higher side; that Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3'a since the dependency of the family number is only one; that Tribunal erred in awarding interest @7.5%, n'hich is highly excessive and finally prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ petitioner submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation and no grounds are made out to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed the Court to disrniss the appeal. Consideration: 5

12. The main contention raised by the insurance company is that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal considered the evidence of p.W. I coupled with Exs.Al to A5, which are certified copies of FIR, charge_sheet, Postmortem examination report, inquest panchanama and M.V. Report, respectively and came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, resulting in death of the deceased. Therefore, i, considered opinion of this Court, the contention of the insurance company that the Tribunal without any basis came to conclusion that the accident happened due to negligence of the driver of the crime untenable and hence, rejected. vehicle, IS

13. With regard to the other contention of the learned counsel for insurance company that Tribunal applied multiplier of ,9, in computing the compensation, it is relevant to note that as per Ex.A3_ Postmortem examination report and Ex.A4_inquest panchanama, the age of the deceased was shown as 60 years and considering the same, the Tribunal has rightiy applied the multiplier of ,9,as envisaged in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationr and therefore, there is no force in the contention of the insurance company on this aspect. {2009) 6 SCC 12 t I t I I , 6 Further, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 7/3,a of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses as the deceased was lnarried.

1.4. Perusal of the record and impugned award clearly show that the insurance companv has reiterated the grounds in the present appeal, which were raised before the il'ribunal and no new grounds are raised in the present appeal. Further, the Tribunal, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the contentions raised by the insurance company, has rightly awarded the compensation

15. In view of the above discussion ancl observations of the l ribunal, in considered opinion of this Court, there are no merits in the appeal and the appellant-insurance comPany failed to make out any case warranting interference with the impugned award. 1,6. The Appeal fails and is according dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed Sd/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family court- cum- nOOiiionat District Judge, at Khammam (With Rglords if any) cj;; bt i" sRl. N MoFAN KRISHNA,{dvo-cate [oPUC] il;;6 ii sfti. r.rncEswnRA RAo REPAKULA,-Advocate IoPUC] Two CD CoPies I To

4. / HIGH COURT DATED:0610?.t2025 'E=- -t EL4 ,/o c1 '7 I t s* J .<? ,J (, ':l i.: \t\ JUDGMENT MACMA.N 0"276 of 201 I I DISMISSING THE MACMA b // ,/ta' 2 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 276 OF 2015 Between: The IFFCO-TOKIO General lnsurance Co Ltd, Khammam, rep. by its Branch Manager, Wyra road, Khammam Taluq, District, is issued to the policy Cover Note Searing'No.40558880 valid from 21-12-2009 to 20-12-2010) ...APPELLANT/R2 AND

1. Karumanchi Thirupathamma, Wo Butchaiah, Age 52 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Puttakota, Khimmam Urban Mandalam, Khammam District. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER No.1

2. Sd.Asha, Wo Jahangir, Age Major, Owner of the Auto bearing No.AP-20-Y- ' 9880, R/o Puttakota, khamham Urban Mandalam, Khammam District ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & R-1 Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.NO. 567 of 2012 dated. 07-03-2014 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family Court- cum- Additional District Judge, at Khammam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate for the appellant and of REPAKULA NAGESWARA RAO, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 . :"1- This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACI\IA be and hereby is dismissed, and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY' To i\\ \\- J Sd/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family Court- cum- Additional District Judge, at Khammam.

2. Two CD Copies tr' !.::- / HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 i11," DECREE C) I F o 'J- \ 1EL Ary o'( s s -,) MACMA.No.276 of 2 .a) a' DISMISSING THE MACMA , //t ,7