Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shriram General Insurance Company ... vs Muddana Venkateswarlu, on 31 October, 2025
1
APHC010347082020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3505]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
505/2020
Between:
1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,
REP.BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER 4-15-19/2, NEAR ALA
HOSPITAL, AMARAVATHI ROAD, GUNTUR - 522 002,
GUNTUR J.C.J.C, POLICY VALID UP TO 01.06.2016
...APPELLANT
AND
1. MUDDANA VENKATESWARLU, S/O.SESHAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
2. MUDDANA PUSHPAVATHI, W/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE. BOTH ARE
C/O.DULLIPALLA VENU BABU, DOOR.NO.28-18-109,
YAGANTI FORT-401, 2ND LANE, RAJENDRA NAGAR,
GUNTUR - 7, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND J.C.J.C.
3. THANDRA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O.POLURAJU,
R/O.D.NO.36-1-176(2), ANKAMMAPALEM, NEAR
KALIMATHA TEMPLE, ENUGUCHETTU DAGGARA,
ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE J.C.J.C.
(OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO.AP 16 TU 2003)
4. V NARAYANA RAO ALIAS NARAYANA, S/O.NARASAIAH
ALIAS NARASIMHAM, EX.RTC DRIVER, R/O.BRODIPET,
GUNTUR, GUNTUR J.C.J.C, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
2
MAIN ROAD, SINGARAYAKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT, KANDUKURU J.C.J.C. (DRIVER OF
BUS BEARING NO.AP 16 TU 2003)
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt
may be pleased toto allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment
and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.1195 of 2015 on the file of the
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District
Judge, Guntur, dated 24th day of January, 2020 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2020
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 grant stay of all further proceedings
pursuant to the decree and judgment dated 24th day of January,
2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1195 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - II Additional District Judge,
Guntur, including execution proceedings pending disposal of the
main M.A.C.M.A. and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. GUDI SRINIVASU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI
2. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU
3
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal is filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the Order dated 24.01.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1195 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Court, Guntur.
2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.
3. The petitioners/claimants are the mother and father of the deceased Dr. Muddana Avinash. They have filed claim petition vide M.V.O.P.No.1195 of 2015 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 and 476 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming an amount of Rs.37,00,000/- as compensation together with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization; in view of the death of their son/Dr. Muddana Avinash in the accident that was occurred on 22.07.2015 at 11:40 PM on NH16 near Kunchanapalli Bridge, Guntur District. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, by an Order, dated 24.01.2020, awarded compensation of Rs.22,72,000/- under various heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
4
4. The facts leading to the case on hand are as follows:
5. It is the case of the petitioners/claimants that on 22.07.2015, the deceased along with his friend Gopala Krishna, went to Vijayawada in a Car bearing Registration No. AP 07 AN 6688 (Swift). While returning to Guntur, when they reached Kunchanapalli Bridge at 11:40 PM, the offending bus bearing Registration No.AP TU 2003 was stationed in the middle of the road without its parking lights on and without taking any precautions, due to which the car of the deceased dashed the stationed offending vehicle, which resulted in the death of the claimants' son/Dr. Muddana Avinash and his friend received severe injuries. The injured persons were shifted to Manipal Hospital by their friend, who was following them on a motor bike, where doctors declared that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital.
6. It is the further case of the claimants that a case was registered in Crime No.230 of 2015, for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC on the file of Tadepalli Police Station on 23.07.2015, against the driver of the bus.
7. It is the further case of the claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years and was pursuing Post Graduation (M.D.S.) in Sibar Dental College, Takkellapadu, Guntur and it is further stated that the accident was occurred due to 5 the negligence of the driver of the bus and therefore, the 1st respondent is vicariously liable for the negligent act of the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the 1st respondent's vehicle, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as claimed by them.
8. The claim was resisted by the respondent Nos.1 and 3, denying the averments made in support of the claim petition and contended that the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving license by the date of the accident and the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. It was further contended that there was no negligence on part of the driver of the bus and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It was further stated in the counter-affidavit that the claim of the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. The 2nd respondent filed separate counter-affidavit contending that the 3rd respondent is not having valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was also not having valid permit and Registration Certificate and Fitness Certificate. As such, there is violation of the conditions specified in the insurance policy and therefore, the 2nd respondent pleaded to exonerate it from the claim. 6 It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
10. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and exhibits Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. Ex.X1 is marked through P.W.3. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, by an order, dated 24.01.2020, allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.22,72,000/- along with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum.
11. Aggrieved by the Order of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/ insurance company preferred the present appeal on the ground that the deceased drove the car in rash and negligent manner at a high speed, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who was driving the car. It is further contended that the deceased was not having valid driving license and the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, without there being any documentary proof.
12. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the learned counsel on either side, the following issues are framed to decide the appeal: 7
Issues: -
1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. AP 16 TU 2003?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive or not?
Issue No.1:
13. It is not in dispute that the accident was occurred on 22.07.2015 at about 11:40 PM and the involvement of the offending bus bearing Registration No. AP 07 TU 2003, in which the son of the claimants was died.
14. In order to prove the negligence on part of the offending vehicle, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, who deposed reiterating contentions, stated in claim petition and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.230 of 2015, dated 23.07.2015, on the file of the Tadepalli Police Station. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No.949 of 2016. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the post mortem report, dated 31.07.2015, issued by the Government hospital, Mangalagiri. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the Inquest Report dated 23.07.2015. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the Accident Report, dated 24.07.2015, from the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Mangalagiri, 8 Guntur District and Ex.A6 is the receipt for Rs.3,88,500/- issued by Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Takkellapadu, Guntur. Though the P.W.1 has reiterated the contents raised in the claim petition, since the P.W.1 was not the eye witness, the evidence of P.W.1 is not helpful to decide the case on hand.
15. Further, in order to strengthen the case of the claimants, D. Gopala Krishna was examined as P.W.2, he is none other than the person who was travelling in the car along with the deceased. P.W.2 categorically deposed that when the car reached near Kunchanapalli Bridge on NH-16, the offending bus stationed in the middle of the road without its parking lights on, in a negligent manner and thereby, the accident was occurred in which he received severe injuries and the son of the claimants was died. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined, the respondents herein failed to disprove his evidence.
16. On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.1, who deposed in his chief affidavit that on 22.07.2015, while he was returning from Dwaraka Tirumala, when the bus reached near Kunchanapalli Bridge from service road to National Highway, he heard a sound from the back side and then he stopped the bus and got down and noticed that one car dashed the bus on the left side from behind. He deposed that the bus was in 9 moving condition at the time of the accident. He further deposed that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car driven by the deceased.
17. The legal executive of the appellant was examined as R.W.2. In his cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased in occurrence of accident.
18. On perusal of Ex.A1, shows that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and the same was confirmed through Ex.A2/ charge sheet which was filed by the investigating officer and concluded that the bus was stationed in the middle of the road without its parking lights on. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of the Ex.A5, the certified copy of the Report submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, which clearly indicates that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle, though the 2nd respondent/ appellant pleaded that the accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of the car and the offending bus, nothing is placed on record to prove the same. Furthermore, on perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.2, who was eye witness to the accident, makes it clear that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without its parking lights on and the same was also confirmed by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet filed, which was marked as Ex.A2.
10
19. From the above oral and documentary evidence put forth by the claimants, it can be safely concluded that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, who parked the bus in the middle of the National Highway without its parking lights on, due to which act, the son of the claimants lost his life, in the accident.
20. In view of the foregoing reasons, it can be safely concluded that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and this issue is answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.
Issue No.2:
21. Admittedly, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was pursuing his Post Graduation (M.D.A.) at Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Takkellapadu, Guntur. In order to prove the same, the claimants have marked Ex.A6 i.e., receipt issued by Sibar Institue of Dental Sciences, Takkellapadu, Guntur. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the deceased was pursuing the Post Graduation in M.D.S.
22. Further, the claimants have also examined the Manager of Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Takkellapadu, Guntur as P.W.3, who categorically deposed that the deceased was pursuing 1st year Post Graduate (M.D.S.) course in the said college and was having 11 good prospects as he can settle as a Doctor and can earn a minimum of Rs.30,000/- per month based on the marks obtained by the deceased in his academics. Further, P.W.2 deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, while he was working in his relatives hospital.
23. Having considered the evidence on record, the Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.15,000/- as income of the deceased per month. Since the deceased is aged 27 years, in terms of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 1 the Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the income towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.21,000/- per month. Since the deceased is a bachelor, half of the amount has been deducted towards personal expenses and his net contribution was fixed at Rs.10,500/- per month which comes to Rs.1,26,000/- per annum. After arriving the monthly income of the deceased in terms of Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the Tribunal has rightly applied appropriate multiplier i.e., '17', and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.21,42,000/-, which is just and proper. In addition to the above said amount, the Tribunal also awarded toward Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection. In total, the 1 (2017) S.C 1050) 2 2009 ACJ 1298 12 Tribunal awarded Rs.22,72,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners, which according to this Court is just compensation.
24. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent/appellant/insurance company has not made out any case warranting interference of this Court.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Order dated 24.01.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1195 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional District Court, Guntur is confirmed. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation within one (01) month from the date of receipt of the Order. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the order of the Tribunal. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 31.10.2025 SCH 13 215 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A. No.505 of 2020 Date 31.10.2025 U SCH