Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Shriram General Insurance Comp Ltd., … vs Allapuraju Sujana, Kadapa Dist Two … on 10 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2276 of 2017
JUDGMENT (per CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J):
Appellant – Insurance Company filed the present appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act aggrieved by the order dated
04.05.2017 in M.V.O.P. No.203 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Kadapa, under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act awarding compensation of
Rs.25,50,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to
as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) The deceased driver while attending to Election duties was
proceeding to Ongole headquarters along with the commandant and
other police staff, on the way on 13.06.2015 at about
04.15 a.m., near Nellore Palem on Nellore – Mumbai Highway, met with
an accident as Tata Magic Auto bearing No.
AP 26TV 0809 came in the opposite direction and dashed the police
jeep. The deceased along with inmates of Jeep sustained injuries and
2
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
were shifted to the Government Hospital, Atmakuru. Later, the
deceased was being taken to Chennai for better treatment, but he
succumbed on the way. At the instance of Assistant Commandant and
inmates of Jeep, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered
as Cr.No.73 of 2012 under Sections 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC against
the driver of the Auto. As deceased aged 25 years and was working as
driver with police department stated to be drawing salary of Rs.14,000/-
per month, considering his future promotions in the department and
better salary prospects, wife of the deceased laid claim for
compensation of Rs.30,50,000/- against the 1st respondent – owner of
auto and 2nd respondent – Insurance Company. The
3rd respondent, mother of the deceased, as was not cooperating with
the claimant, she got impleaded as such.
(b) The 1st respondent filed a written statement contending that the
deceased was at fault in causing the accident but not the driver of auto
by denying that the auto was driven in a rash and negligent manner
without dim and dip of lights on wrong side. It was also contended that
the negligence was solely attributable to the deceased as the inquest
report and final report of police investigating the accident found that the
same occurred due to fault of deceased, therefore, the claim was
prayed to be dismissed.
3
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
(c) Insurance company also filed written statement denying all the
averments of petition and firstly stated that auto never involved in the
alleged accident and further by referring to the inquest report and final
report, it was stated that the deceased was at fault in causing the
accident and as driver of auto was in compliance with all traffic rules at
the time of accident, he could not be found to be in fault. Further it was
also pleaded that the driver of auto was not having valid and effective
driving license to drive the auto, which was transport vehicle, thereby
violated the conditions of policy, eventually insurance company also
filed petition under Section 170 of the Act, which was permitted. The
compensation claimed based on age, income, future prospects and
interest were all contested to be highly excessive and unjust and
thereby sought for dismissal of the petition.
(d) The 3rd respondent – the mother of the deceased, while denying
the averments in the petition to the extent that she was not cooperating
in instituting the claim, supported the other aspects of claim and prayed
to award legitimate share in her favour.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and
marked Exs.A1, A2 and Exs.X1 to X5, whereas on behalf of
2nd respondent, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Ex.B1, in
support of their case.
4
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
5. The Tribunal considering the pleadings and documentary and oral
evidence framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the accident took place on 13.06.2012 at 4.50 a.m.
near Nellore Palem on Nellore to Mumbai High way due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Magic Auto
bearing No.AP 26TV 0809, resulting death of the deceased
by name Allapuraju Kiran Kumar?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation, if so,
to what extent, and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?”
6. The first issue was answered in affirmative upon considering the
evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who were inmates of the police jeep when
the accident occurred. The inquest report and final report on which
much reliance was placed by 1st and 2nd respondents were discarded as
P.Ws.3 and 4 were direct witnesses to the incident. In so far as the 2nd
issue relating to quantum of compensation was concerned, age of the
deceased came to be treated as 24 years as appearing in the inquest
report (Ex.A2), the income as Rs.15,027/- per month as appearing in
the salary certificate (Ex.X3) and by applying multiplier of 18 in terms of
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another1, the loss of income came to be assessed as Rs.21,63,888/-
after 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. The
1
(2009) 6 SCC 121
5
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
Tribunal awarded rupees one lakh towards consortium, Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses, one lakh each to petitioner and 3rd
respondent towards loss of love and affection, Rs.61,112/- towards loss
of amenities, however, declined to grant future prospects by holding that
due to young age of petitioner there was every chance of remarriage to
her, in all compensation of Rs.25,50,000/- was awarded to be payable
by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of
6%. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Tribunal, Insurance company
preferred the present appeal.
7. Heard Sri D.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for appellant,
Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
1st respondent and Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent. None appeared for the
2nd respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal
erred in considering evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 in coming to conclusion
that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of
driver of the auto by ignoring the crucial evidence i.e., the inquest report
(Ex.A2) and final report (Ex.X5). These crucial exhibits categorically
mention that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the
deceased who was driving police jeep but not the driver of auto,
6
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
therefore, the findings rendered by the Tribunal in this regard suffer
from perversity. He further contended that the finding of the Tribunal
that respondents have not produced single piece of document or
evidence with respect to proving negligence on the part of the driver of
auto, on the face of Exs.A2 and X5, is equally perverse. He would
place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Ashalata Bhowmika and others2 in
support of the submission that when the deceased driver is at fault
claime for compensation is not maintainable under Section 166 of the
Act.
9. Opposing the above submissions, learned counsel for
1st respondent/claimant, while supporting the order passed by the
Tribunal to the extent of finding that the accident occurred because of
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, contended that the
reasoning and findings rendered by the Tribunal are based on proper
appreciation of the evidence both documentary and oral. In particular
considering the evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.3 and 4, Tribunal has
rightly held that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the auto, which does not suffer from any infirmity.
The inquest report and final report on which much reliance has been
placed on cannot by itself be conclusive evidence in deciding that the
2
(2018) 9 SCC 801
7
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the
deceased. Rather it constitutes one of the evidences and when there
are direct eyewitnesses to the incident, such evidence of eyewitnesses
should be given more credence and weightage than going by the
inquest report and final reports. At any rate, he contended that when
occurrence of accident has been established these documents which
are part of criminal proceedings cannot be looked into while considering
the claim under Section 166 of the Act as it is well settled that the
degree of proof required to be considered in adjudicating the claims
being on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities but not by
beyond reasonable doubt. He also contended that though claimant has
not filed any appeal for enhancement of compensation, claimant is
entitled for just and fair compensation. This Court even in exercise of
appellate powers can enhance the compensation, in support of the
same, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. E.Suseelamma and
others3. The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects and that the
interest awarded at the rate of 6% is unjust and it ought to have granted
interest at the rate of 9%, in support of the same reliance has been
placed on National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
others4.
3
2023 SCC OnLine AP 1725
8
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
10. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions made
by both parties.
11. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:
I. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs interference
as claimed by the Appellant – Insurance Company?II. Whether the claimants are entitled for just and fair
compensation even in the absence of any appeal or cross-
appeal by them?
III. To what relief?
12. The undisputed facts are that deceased was driving police jeep
bearing No.AP 09PA 145 travelling along with P.Ws.3 and 4 and other
police staff proceeding to Ongole headquarters. Even Tata Magic Auto
bearing No.AP 26TV 0809 engaged for election duty and the same was
returning from Nellore proceeding to Udayagiri after completing the
escort of EVMs which was also carrying two police staff. At about 04.15
hours near Nellore Palem on Nellore – Mumbai national highway, the
accident occurred. When the incident happened, police jeep was driven
by deceased with P.Ws.3 and 4 as inmates, who also sustained injuries.
Likewise, auto was driven by R.W.2 with two inmates, who were
examined as L.Ws.4 and 5 in Crime No.73/12, who also sustained
injuries. The accident is undisputed, however, it is the case of claimant
4
(2017) 16 SCC 680
9
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto, the same has
dashed the police jeep. Whereas in defense, both 1st and 2nd
respondents before Tribunal contended that it was the police jeep which
dashed auto on right side of the road meaning thereby, the deceased
driver of the jeep was negligent and responsible but not the driver of
auto. In support the claimants examined P.Ws.3 and 4, who are
Assistant Commandant and police constable, inmates of jeep who
deposed regarding the occurrence of accident and also stated that the
driver of auto was responsible for the same.
13. On contra, the respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal relied on
Ex.A2 and Ex.X5, which are inquest report and final report. Ex.X5,
which mentioned that the preliminary enquiry revealed driver of jeep
was at fault. The said report was prepared based on investigation and
the statements rendered by P.Ws.3 and 4 in the present case who
consistently stated that accident occurred because of negligence of
driver of the auto and statements of LWs.4 and 5, police staff, inmates
travelling in auto. Unlike the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, L.Ws.4 and 5
were not examined by the respondents in these proceedings. When the
occurrence of accident is undisputed and there is direct eyewitness
evidence on behalf of the claimants, in order to disprove or rebut the
same, the respondents mere reliance on Ex.A2 and Ex.X5 would not
suffice rather L.Ws.4 and 5 should have been examined to discharge
10
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
the same. The Tribunal rightly came to conclusion based on evidence
of eye witnesses who are inmates in holding that accident occurred
because of rash and negligent act of driver of auto, particularly when
inmates of auto i.e., L.Ws.4 and 5 have not being examined. The
Tribunal when has taken possible view, this Court exercising appellate
jurisdiction cannot interdict with the said view merely because on re-
appreciation of evidence, another view is possible. Ex.A2 and Ex.X5
being documents concerning criminal proceedings, the same cannot be
treated as sole evidence for the purpose of deciding claims under
Section 166 of the Act. The view taken by Tribunal, in the considered
opinion of this Court, is therefore not perverse. It is trite law that in
deciding claims under Section 166, one has to look from the perspective
of preponderance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt.
When accident is admitted and there are direct eyewitnesses to the
incident, they particularly being police officers, there is no reason to
disbelieve their statements.
14. The Judgment in Ashalata Bhowmika and others case (supra)
relied on by the counsel for the appellant was a case where the
offending vehicle driven by the deceased met with an accident without
intervention of any second vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of
the deceased, therefore, as the victim died because of his own action of
rash and negligent driving, the claim of compensation in that case was
11
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
held to be not sustainable. On facts, the said judgment has no
application.
Points I & II:
15. We now proceed to determine as to whether the claimant and 3rd
respondent are entitled for just and fair compensation under law. It is
settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation
and that endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair
compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred
any appeal for enhancement or filed cross objection in the appeal filed
by either insurance company or owner. We had summed up the law on
this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian
Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four
others5, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company
Limited6, Surekha v. Santosh7, Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali8 and
Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod (Supra 5). As the purport of
compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair
reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the
5
M ACM A No.934/ 2015, dat ed 09.01.2025
6
(2022) 14 SCC 712
7
(2021) 16 SCC 467
8
(2021) 17 SCC 148
12
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
16. On the point of income and age as determined by Tribunal, there
is no dispute as the learned counsel for the insurance company did not
address any arguments on the same. Though claim petition has been
filed by only deceased wife, his mother was also made as a party,
thereby the claim has to be considered from the perspective of two
claimants and the awarded compensation has to be apportioned among
them. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of income towards
personal living expenses considering number of claimants as two. The
Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium to the claimants,
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- each to claimant
and 3rd respondent before Tribunal towards loss of love and affection,
Rs.61,112/- towards loss of amenities.
17. On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in
Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra), Magma National Insurance Company
Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others9, Smt.Anjali and
others v. Lokendra Rathod and others10, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.11., and Rojalini
Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others12, we award the following
9
(2018) 11 SCC 780
10
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682
11
(2021) 11 SCC 780
13
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of
Estate and Funeral Expenses, as ₹48,400/- (per claimant), ₹18,150/-
and ₹18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini‘s Case (Supra).
Future Prospects:
18. The deceased was employed with police department having
permanent job and was aged 24 years i.e., under 40 years of the age.
Following the judgment rendered in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others13, as per Para No.59.3, claimants
are entitled to future prospects at the rate of 50% on the income as
determined above.
Interest:
19. Coming to the contention of the claimants that the Tribunal has
granted interest @6% per annum, which is meagre and in view of
various recent judgments of Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for
interest @9% per annum is concerned, the Apex Court in Malarvizhi
and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and
others14 and Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and
Others15 had granted interest @9% per annum, respectively following
12
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901
13
(2017) 16 SCC 680
14
(2020) 4 SCC 228
15
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682
14
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
those judgments, the interest is awarded @9% from the date of the
claim petition till realization.
20. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as
mentioned below:
S.No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled
in rupees
Net Annual Income Rs.15,027/- x 12 =
1
Rs.1,80,324/-
Future prospects Rs.90,162/-
2
(at the age of 24 years) (i.e., 50% of the income)
Total Income Rs.2,70,486/-
Deduction towards personal
3 Rs.90,162/-
expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd)
4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.1,80,324/-
18 x Rs.1,80,324/- =
5 Multiplier of 18 for the age of 24 years
Rs.32,45,832/-
Conventional Heads:
Rs.96,800/-
6 (i) Loss of consortium (2 claimants)
(Rs.48,400/- x 2)
(ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
(iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
Rs.33,78,932/- (rounded of
7. Total Compensation
to Rs.33,78,930/-
21. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. No.2276 of 2017 is dismissed,
however, compensation is enhanced over and above granted by the
Tribunal to the claimant and 3rd respondent in MVOP. No.203 of 2013
15
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- Principal District
Judge, Kadapa, as just and fair compensation in the following terms:
1. The claimants/respondents are granted enhanced compensation
of ₹33,78,930/- as just and fair, with interest @ 9% per annum thereon
from the date of claim petition till realization;
2. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.33,78,930/-, the
3rd respondent – mother of the deceased is entitled for an amount of
Rs.8,78,930/- and the claimant – wife of the deceased is entitled for the
remaining amount of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation amount, as aforesaid, with cost and interest, minus the
amount if any already deposited, within a period of one month before
the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid
terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid.
5. Entire costs in this case are awarded in favour of the claimant
and 3rd respondent before the Tribunal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous pending consideration, if any, in this
case shall stand closed.
___________________
16
RNT, J & CGR, J
M ACM A No.2276 of 2017
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
______________________
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J
.03.2025
SS