The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mannepalli Sakuntala

MANNEPALLI SA K UNTALA, W/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED 3 4 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 31ST WARD, KADAKATLA, T A DEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WE S T GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶14

MANNEPALLI MA H ENDRA, S/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, MALE AGED 23 Y E ARS, STUDENT R/O. 31ST WARD, KADAKATLA, TADEPALLIGUDE M MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIS T RICT.

¶15

MANNEPALLI M A DHURI, D/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, FEMALE AGED 21 YEARS, R/O. KADAKATLA, TAD E PALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST G ODAVARI DISTRICT. R2 AND R3 A RE DECLARE AS MAJORS AN D R1 MOTHER AS DISCHARG E D AS THEIR GUARDIAN VID E COURT ORDER DATED 05.05.2023 IN IA.NO.1/2023.

¶16

MANNEPALLI CH A NDRA RAO, S/O CHALLAIAH, H INDU, MALE AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. KADAKATLA, TADEPALLIGU D EM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶17

2

¶18

NUTHALAPATI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. VENKATESU, HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS, OWNER CUM DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER, R/O.CHINTACHETTU VEEDHI, JAGANNADHAPURAM, NALLAJARLA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court aggrieved by the decree and Judgment passed in M.V.O.P No. 660/2015, dated 12-052022, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru,

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

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 to condone the delay of 38 days occurred in filing the appeal against the decree and Judgment in MVOP NO .660/2015,dt. 12-05-2022 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-1 Additional District Judge, Eluru and pass

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶24

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 to stay of all further proceedings including the execution of the Judgment and decree dt. 12.05.2022 in MVOP No. 660/2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Eluru, including the withdrawal of money deposited by the petitioner pending the above appeal before this Hon'ble court to meet the ends of Justice.

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

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 to declare the Petitioners herein as Majors and to discharge the 2nd respondent herein from the guardianship in the interest of justice and pass

¶27

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶28

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 to vacate the interim stay granted on 04.11.2022 in IA.No.2 of 2022 in MACMA.No.434 of 2022 and permit the petitioners herein to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellant under the Interim Orders dated 04.11.2022

¶29

3

¶30

in IA.No.2 of 2022 in MACMA.No.434 of 2022 in the interest of justice and pass

¶31

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶32

1.KRISHNANAND VADAKATTU

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.Y N ANJANEYACHARYULU

¶35

2.V SATYANARAYANA NEKKANTI

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

4

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 434 of 2022

¶39

JUDGMENT:-

¶40

The Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed the present Appeal challenging by the order and decree, dated 12.05.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.660 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of death of one Mr. Mannepalli Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) by the Claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 06.09.2011.

¶41

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶42

3. The case of the Claimants is briefly as follows:

¶43

On 06.09.2011 at 11.00 a.m, the deceased left his house in Kadakatla

¶44

in order to go to Gandhi Colony of Dubacherla by his Honda Shine motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BR 614. At about 1.00 noon, when he reached near Cashew Factory of Vankadara Sarvarayudu in Gandhi Colony Road, Dubacherla and he passing on the road, the Respondent No.1, who is a driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 27 A 5332, 5333, while going on same direction and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and rammed the motorcycle of the deceased while passing on his right side, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the ground from motorcycle and

¶45

5

¶46

sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. A case registered in Crime No.132 of 2011 under Section 304-A of IPC as against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the Claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased filed the Claim Petition seeking compensation from the Respondents.

¶47

The Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

¶48

Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No. 2 filed a Written Statement denying all material averments made in the claim petition and inter alia contended that the Respondent No.1, who is driver-cum-owner of the Tractor and Trailer was having valid and effective driving license and the Claimants must prove the same. The Respondent No.2 denied the manner of the accident as stated by the Claimants. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 37, BR 614 are necessary parties to the claim petition. There

¶49

is clear contributory negligence and the accident was occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased and that requested to dismiss the Claim Petition.

¶50

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

¶51

“1. Whether the pleaded accident, dated 06.09.2011 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 27 A 5332, 5333 (offending vehicle) and whether the deceased late Mannepalli Srinivasa Rao died in the said accident?

¶52

2. Whether the offending vehicle was driven and owned by 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent as on the date of the accident?

¶53

6

¶54

3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BR 164 as contended by the 2^nd respondent?

¶55

4. Whether there are any violations of policy conditions?

¶56

5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of respondents?

¶57

6. To what relief?”

¶58

On behalf of the Claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the Respondent No.2, RW-1 was examined and marked Exs.B1 and Ex.B2.

¶59

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against Respondents No. 1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.6,00,000/with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of realization and Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the Award.

¶60

Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company/ Respondent No.2 preferred this Appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in holding while granting compensation, the question joint liability cannot be confirmed when there is contributory negligence, the claim petition filed before the Tribunal is not maintainable for non-impleading the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BR 641. The Tribunal further failed to observe that the accident took place due to contributory negligence and paramount liability of the deceased should also be considered by the Tribunal before granting

¶61

7

¶62

compensation and also failed to examine the validity of the deceased driving license which is essential while granting compensation as per rules contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act and also among other grounds.

¶63

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/ Claimants herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

¶64

Now the point for consideration is:

¶65

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶66

POINT:

¶67

Perused the record.

¶68

The Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased got herself examined as

¶69

PW-1 and deposed with regard to nature of the accident and categorically stated that on 06.09.2011 at 11.00 a.m, the deceased left his house in Kadakatla in order to go to Gandhi Colony of Dubacherla by his Honda Shine motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BR 614. At about 1.00 noon, when he reached near Cashew Factory of Vankadara Sarvarayudu in Gandhi Colony Road, Dubacherla, the Respondent No.1, who is a driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 27 A5332, 5333, while going on same direction drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and rammed the motorcycle of the deceased while passing on his right side, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the ground from motorcycle and sustained severe head injury and died on the spot.

¶70

8

¶71

To substantiate their contentions, the Claimants got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Apart from the same, she also got examined PW-2, who is none other than the brother of the deceased, who is the person has lodged FIR i.e Ex.A1.Though, the Insurance Company took a plea that the accident occurred because of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. But however, in the absence of any evidence to establish the same, the Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, coupled with Ex.A2 to Ex.A3, particularly Ex.A2 i.e Charge Sheet filed by the Police after due investigation against the Respondent No.1 answered the issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1 as on the date of accident.

¶72

Now coming to the quantum, as per evidence of PW-1, the deceased was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by doing cattle business by taking the land on lease. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal considered at Rs.3,500/- per month as the accident took place in the year 2011, which in the opinion of this Court is reasonable. As there are 4 dependents in the present case, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4^th towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.2,625/(Rs.3,500/- + Rs.875/-). After applying appropriate multiplier ‘17’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation¹ , to the age group of 29 years, the loss of earnings would come

¶73

1 2009 ACJ 1298

¶74

9

¶75

to Rs. 5,35,500/- (Rs.2,625/- x 12 x 17). Apart from the same, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads viz., funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. Overall, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, which in the opinion of this Court is reasonable and needs no interference.

¶76

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶77

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶78

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.07.2026 KK

¶79

Whether the order is :

¶80

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mannepalli Sakuntala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mannepalli Sakuntala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Shiva Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Lakshmi , Vs The State of A.P.

S. Iqbal Vs The State of A.P.

M/S.Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nalluri Murali Krishna

Ms Lotus Constructions Vs C Sai Prasad

Imperial Coastal Infra Vs Sri Pradyumna