(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased tobegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act . aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. no. 384/2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam dt. 31-01-2022

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 condone the delay of 175 days in filing the MACMA against the decree and judgment passed in MVOP No. 384 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal - cum - I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam dt. 31-01- 2022

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 pleased to grant sty of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment dated the 31th day of Jay, 2022 passed in MVOP No. 384/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 to withdraw the deposited amount in MVOP 384/2018 before the Hon'ble MACT cum I ADJ Court, Srikakulam district as deposited by the appellant as per directions of this Hon'ble court orders dt 6.12.2022 in MACMA.N0508/2022 Srikakulam district and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 vacate the Interim orders dt 06.12.2022 in the above MACMA.N0.508/ 2022 and pass)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant – Insurance company challenging the award dated 31.01.2022 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam in M.V.O.P.No.384 of 2018 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants seeking compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for the death of one Sanapala Govinda Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in an accident that occurred on 09.03.2018 at Dusipeta village fields, Amadalavalasa mandal, Srikakulam district.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referredto as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant Nos.1 to 4 are the wife, children and mother of the deceased. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor bearing No. AP30TZTR3147 attached with thrashing machine, respectively. On 09.03.2018, while the deceased along with others was attending coolie works in the tractor attached with a thrashing machine mentioned hereinabove, at about 04.00 p.m., as the thrashing machine got struck, the 1st respondent, arranged an iron flat and started the engine of the vehicle without covering the top, as a result of which, it lost control, welding was broken and the iron flat hit the deceased on the right side of his ribs and he also sustained several other injuries. He was shifted to RIMS General Hospital, Srikakulam, where he succumbed to injuries at about 05.30 p.m. The incident was reported to Station House Officer, Amadalavalasa police station, who registered a case in crime No.20 of 2018 and a charge sheet was also filed on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Amadalavalasa in CC.No.76 of 2018.It is the case of the claimants that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by attending daily labour works.

4. Respondent No.2 contested the claim petition by filing a written statement denying the material allegations and contending that the 1st respondent is not responsible for the accident and that the deceased was not attentive at the time of accident. The 3rd respondent also contested the case by filing a detailed counter affidavit contending that the tractor belonging to the 2nd respondent was not involved in the accident and that it caused mainly due to the thrashing machine, which was not insured by the 3rd respondent. It further contended that the 1st respondent had no valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the 2nd respondent willfully violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The 3rd respondent further contended that it is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants in any way and hence, requested the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

                  1) Whether the deceased/SanapalaGovinda Rao, S/o late Latchanna died due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 – Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP 30 TZ-TR 3147?

                  2) Whether the petitioners are to claim any compensation for the death of the deceased-SanapalaGovinda Rao, S/o late Latchanna? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents 1 to 3?

                  3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent-driver was examined as R.W.1, Deputy Manager of respondent No.3 was examined as R.W.2 and Senior Assistant of RTA office was examined as R.W3. They got marked Exs.B1 to B3 and Ex.X1 to X3.

7. The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and material available before it, came to a conclusion that the 1st respondent was holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident, that the deceased is a third party to the accident and that the 3rd respondent is entirely and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,15,000/- to the claimants as compensation towards the death of the deceased in the accident occurred on 09.03.2018. Challenging the award dated 31.01.2022, the 3rd respondent filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

8. Heard Sri. Gudi Srinivasu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri. T. Tejeswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.3 strenuously contended that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.10,15,000/- erroneously. He further contended that the tractor alone was insured with the appellant/respondent No.3 and that no premium was paid towards the insurance of the thrashing machine which is used only for agricultural purposes. He further contended that the Tribunal grossly erred by fastening the liability on the appellant/respondent No.3 though the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the deceased who died because of the thrashing machine. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,500/- which is untenable. Thus, requested to set-aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the award passed by the Tribunal in all aspects and contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.10,15,000/- to the claimants and that the same need not be interfered with by this Court.

11. Perused the entire material available on record. A perusal of the evidence adduced by P.W.2 – eye witness to the accident, it is clear that on the fateful day, the 1st respondent attached a thrashing machine with the tractor and while the thrashing machine was functioning, it suddenly got struck, subsequently, the 1st respondent placed an iron flat (inupabadda) as an interim arrangement and started the engine of the tractor with high speed without covering the top cover, resulting in loss of control and breakage of the welding, the iron flat which was placed by the 1st respondent hit the deceased on right side of his ribs and forehead. The deceased sustained several blood injuries and died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. The same version can also be witnessed from the accident report relied on by the claimants which is marked as Ex.A3. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased died due to the rash and negligence of the respondent No.1. Accordingly, the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 infavour of the claimants and the same need no interference by this Court.

12. Now, a perusal of Ex.B1, it can be seen that the 1st respondent was holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident and Ex.B2 discloses that the subject vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent and the same is in force as on the date of accident. Insofar as the contention of the 3rd respondent that the thrashing machine was not insured by it is concerned, time and again, the Apex Court, in catena of judgments held that no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer or any machine attached to a tractor and when such machine is attached to the tractor that is insured, it becomes the part of the tractor. The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortuous liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is sine quo non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Inasmuch as the thrashing machine by itself cannot be driven or functioned and it has to be carried or towed with a tractor, the question of insuring the thrashing machine would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the thrashing machine and in case of negligence driving of the tractor, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. Moreover, it is very clear that a thrashing machine cannot run on its and it does not have a separate engine, it has to function with the help of a tractor. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability of paying compensation on the appellant/respondent No.3 and the same is on reasonable basis.

13. Now, coming to the quantum, though the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, no documentary proof was filed by the claimants in support of the same. Further, the age of the deceased as per inquest report was 45. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal has fixed the daily income of the deceased as Rs.200/- as he was attending daily labour; thus the monthly income of the deceased was computed as Rs.6,000/-. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 25% of the monthly income was added towards future prospects, thus the monthly income is computed to Rs.7,500/- [Rs.6000/- + 25% of Rs.6000/-]. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would become Rs.90,000/- and after deducing 1/4th of the same towards personal expenses, the amount the deceased would be contributing to his family would become Rs.67,500/- [Rs.90,000/- - Rs.22,500/-]. As per the decision Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1 , considering the age of the deceased, the relevant multiplier is ‘14’. Thus, the total amount of compensation liable to be paid to the claimants under the head of loss of dependency would become Rs.9,45,000/- [Rs.67,500/- X 14]. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,15,000/- [Rs.9,45,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-] to the claimants. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide the impugned award is neither excessive nor deficient, it is on reasonable basis and the same need not be interfered.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam in M.V.O.P.No.384 of 2018 is on reasonable basis and the same need not be intervened by this Court. Accordingly, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.