(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to allow the Appeal by setting aside the Orders dated 30-12-2015 made in O.P.No.241 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge at Guntur, and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(MACMAMP 2856 OF 2016

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 t condone the delay of 64 days in re-presenting the appeal

IA NO: 2 OF 2016(MACMAMP 2963 OF 2016

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 stay the operation of the judgement and decree dated 30.12.2015 made in OP No.241/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Guntur

Prayer: begs to prefer the present Memorandum of Cross Objections in O.F.241of 2013 in MAGMA No. 2037 of 2016 dated 30.12.2015

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 2991 days in filing the above Cross objection in M.A.C.M.A.No. 2037 of 2016 on the file of this Hon‟ble Court and be please to pass)

Common Judgment:

Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J.

Heard,

Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, and Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

1. The parties are arrayed as arrayed in the present appeal.

2. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.241 of 2013, dated 30.12.2015, by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), the Insurance Company preferred this appeal.

3. Along side the appeal, the grounds are annexed. The main ground raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the alleged accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased himself and the appellant cannot be saddled with any liability for payment of compensation. The other ground raised is that the Tribunal did not appreciate that the deceased, driver of the motor cycle, was instrumental and without verifying the true facts, the judgment was delivered against the appellant. Again, the appellant meticulously argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the police without verifying the true facts and only to help the petitioners/claimants, routinely filed the charge sheet against the driver of the lorry.

4. To elucidate whether the judgment passed by the Tribunal needs any interference or not, the facts germane to the case are texted hereunder:

                  (i) The 1st respondent is the wife, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters and the 5th respondent is the mother of the deceased. The 5th respondent died during pendency of the O.P., and in pursuance, respondent Nos.6 to 11 are added as legal representatives of the 5th respondent.

                  (ii) The deceased hails from Mannava Village and used to work as Principal of Sri Chaitanya E-Techno School, Madira, Khammam District. On 15.03.2012, the deceased, along with his brother by name Subba Rao was travelling on their motorcycle bearing No.AP36P8284 and the deceased was the pillion rider and when they reached Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada Ghat Road, Krishna District, the accident vehicle, lorry bearing No.AP29T6696 came from back side of the deceased motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules, hit the back side of the motorcycle, resultantly, the deceased and his brother fell down and sustained multiple injuries all over the body and they instantaneously succumbed to death on the spot.

                  (iii) A crime was registered, Crime No.190 of 2012 by the Vijayawada I Town Police Station under Section 304-A of IPC against the 3rd respondent, who is the driver. He remained ex parte.

                  (iv) At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years and was working as Principal of Sri Chaitanya E-Techno School, Madhira, Khammam District, and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The principal contention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that they lost their support due to the death of the deceased and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- to the claimants.

5. In oppugnation to the said petition filed, the 1st respondent denied all the averments and contended that he is no way concerned with the claim and alleged that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force. The 2nd respondent filed written statement, controverting the averments made in the petition and denying the income of the deceased that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and further asserted that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle bearing No.AP36P8284, who crossed the road suddenly without giving signals and came into contact with the lorry bearing No.AP29T6696, due to which the accident occurred and that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle for causing the accident. The other averment is that the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the compensation cannot be saddled upon the 2nd respondent and the claim petition should be dismissed. The 3rd respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the averments of both the parties, framed the following issues:

                  i. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.AP 29 T 6696 and caused death of Golla Prakasa Rao?

                  ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so from whom and at what rate?

                  iii. To what relief?

7. In the course of the trial, the 1st claimant examined herself as PW1, and got examined PWs.2 and 3 on her behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A12. Exs.X1 to X4 are marked through PW3. The appellant has marked no oral evidence. Ex.B1 is the lone document marked, copy of the policy issued by the 2nd respondent.

8. Adverting to the issue No.1, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the affidavit of PW1, and Exs.A1 to A12 marked through PW1.

                  Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.190 of 2012 of Vijayawada I Town Police Station registered for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. PW2, K.Murali Krishna, is the one who gave complaint. Ex.A2 is the copy of the charge sheet filed before the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City, against the 3rd respondent, who is the driver of the offending lorry for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A2, charge sheet clearly concludes that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the inquest report, which is Ex.A3, also supports the same. Ex.A4 is the copy of postmortem report of the deceased.

9. Both the inquest report and postmortem report apparently establishes that at the time of death, the age of the deceased was 38 years. Ex.A5 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector‟s report, which indicates that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the offending vehicle. Ex.A6 is the copy of rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.A7 is the SSC Marks list of the deceased, confirming the date of birth as 05.02.1974. Ex.A8 is the B.A. Degree Provisional Certificate issued by Nagarjuna University, dated 17.11.1997. Ex.A9 is the B.Ed., Degree Provisional Certificate issued by Nagarjuna University, dated 12.01.2009. Ex.A10 is the M.A. (English) Provisional Certificate issued by Kakatiya University, dated 18.10.2015. Ex.A11 is the experience certificate issued by Disney Land High School, Warangal, A.P., dated 02.03.2012.

10. In the cross examination, PW1 categorically stated that the driver of the offending lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and denied the suggestion that the deceased was not working in Sri Chaitanya E-Techno School, Madhira. Added to the same, PW2, K.Murali Krishna, who is cousin of deceased, described the manner in which the accident occurred being the eyewitness. The cross-examination of PW2 proved not helpful to the appellant. PW3, R.Jaya Ram, who was working as Chief Accountant of Sri Chaitanya E-Techno School, deposed that the deceased was working as Principal in Madhira Branch from 01.05.2011 to 14.03.2012 and died in the accident on 15.03.2012 and monthly salary was Rs.30,000/- and the net salary was Rs.29,800/-.

11. There is no cross-examination by the respondents and the evidence of PW3 stands admitted. The driver remained ex parte and the appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, did not take any steps to summon the driver to examine, which confirms the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving and resultantly, the issue was answered against the appellant/respondents in the claim petition.

12. In respect of issue Nos.2 and 3, it is an admitted fact that the policy was operating as on the date of accident and while considering the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, after collaborating the evidence adduced by PW1 and the other witnesses on her behalf, concluded that the salary drawn by the deceased was Rs.30,000/- and the deceased used to pay income tax and professional tax was left undisputed.

13. The Tribunal, legalistically after deducting 20% of the amount towards income tax and professional tax, the net salary derived as Rs.24,000/- and total annual income of the deceased as Rs.2,88,000/-. 1/3rd was deducted towards personal and living expenses and finally the net contribution towards the family was shown as Rs.1,92,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was taken as 05.02.1974, which was not strictly rebutted by the appellant/Insurance Company. The multiplier applicable to the deceased, as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corpo ration and Another((2009) 6 SCC 121), was taken as “15‟ and accordingly, the entitlement for the compensation towards loss of dependency was Rs.28,80,000/- (Rs.1,92,000 x 15).

14. The Tribunal was legally mindful in awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation charges. The 1st respondent/claimant, being the widow of the deceased, is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, as per the pronouncement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others((2013) 9 SCC 54). Finally, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,05,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit, holding all the respondents as jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

15. The main argument advanced by the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to see in the proper perspective as to whether the charge sheet is filed in a routine manner and his argument was precise on the said contention. This Court verified the entire pleadings in the counter and the evidence, nowhere it could be traced that the Insurance Company filed any case challenging the charge sheet before the competent Court and in absence, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot raise this issue and hence, the same is rejected in limine per se.

16. Regarding the rash and negligent driving, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire evidence adduced by the claimants and the failure on the part of the Insurance Company to examine the driver, who was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal and in such absence which is crucial, this Court feels it appropriate that the arguments raised by the appellant need to be scuttled down as erroneous and unwarranted and raised only for the purpose of the appeal intentionally.

17. The Tribunal rightly taken note of the judgments of the Apex Court while awarding the compensation and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal to interfere with. Hence, this appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.241 of 2013, dated 30.12.2015 by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Guntur, is liable to be dismissed as devoid of substantive merit.

18. Resultantly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2037 of 2016 is dismissed, inter alia upholding the order of the Tribunal.

19. The claimants, being embittered with the order of the Tribunal in not awarding the compensation as prayed for in the petition, filed this Cross- Objection No.42 of 2024.

20. As this Court dismissed M.A.C.M.A.No.2037 of 2016 filed by the Insurance Company against the order of the Tribunal, dated 30.12.2015, in M.V.O.P.No.241 of 2013, no further order needs to be passed in this Cross- Objection and, hence, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

21. As a sequitur, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.