Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12215
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Sujatha, J
Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Khambampati Rama Sita – Respondent
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 770 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gudi Srinivasu
For the Respondents: Y V Anil Kumar, T V Jaggi Reddy
An insurance company is liable for compensation in a motor accident where eye-witness testimony and official investigations establish that the driver's rash and negligent conduct, rather than the deceased's contributory negligence, was the proximate cause of death.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 304-A of IPC - Death in motor accident - Liability of Insurance Company - Quantum of compensation - Contributory negligence - The driver of a concrete mixture vehicle operated the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while reversing, causing fatal injuries to the deceased - Forensic evidence and testimonies establish negligence of the driver - Determination of notional income based on daily wage - Deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses - Application of multiplier based on age group - Award of conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium - Tribunal’s award of Rs.9,20,000/- is reasonable and sustainable - High court finds no perversity in Tribunal’s findings. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, while performing his duties of loading cement mixture into a vehicle, suffered fatal injuries when the driver of the vehicle reversed in a rash and negligent manner, crushing his leg. The deceased subsequently passed away during treatment.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, finding that the evidence provided by eye-witnesses and official investigation reports (FIR, Charge Sheet) proved the negligence of the vehicle driver and that the insurance company failed to substantiate claims of contributory negligence or policy violations.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the driver's negligence, the liability of the insurer despite claims of contributory negligence by the deceased, and the reasonableness of the compensation quantum.
Ratio Decidendi: Where evidence confirms that a vehicle driver acted in a rash and negligent manner causing death, and the compensation calculation adheres to established judicial norms regarding dependency and age-appropriate multipliers, the tribunal's award shall be upheld in the absence of evidence of contributory negligence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the parties, the accident incident, and the initial proceedings before the tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. analysis of the evidence and determination of rash and negligent driving as the cause of the accident. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. evaluation of quantum of compensation and conclusion on the appeal's merits. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2020 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, Dated 21st day of July, 2023 and pass
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 to condone the delay of 3 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against the decree and judgment M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2020 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum - Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, Dated 21st day of July, 2023, 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment dated 21st day of July, 2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2020 on the file of The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum - Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, 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. Y V ANIL KUMAR
2. T V JAGGI REDDY
The Court made the following Judgment:
JUDGMENT:-
The Insurance Company/ Respondent No.3 filed the present Appeal challenging the order and decree 21.07.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.9,20,000/- to the Claimants/ Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, as against the claim of 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) for the death of Mr. Khambampati Venkanna (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident that occurred on 14.03.2020.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows:
On 14.03.2020 at 9.00 a.m, the deceased started from his house to attend the road concrete work at Kunchanapalli Road. At 4.00 p.m, the deceased was loading the cement mixture into the Agro 2000 Self loading concrete mixture bearing No. AP 05 DT 4164 (CEV). While he doing so, deceased left leg fell into the mixture and crushed. Immediately he shifted to Government General Hospital, Eluru. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries and died on 05.05.2020. A crime is registered against the Respondent No.1 under Section 304-A of IPC vide Crime No. 200 of 2020.
4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.2 remained ex parte.
5. Respondent No.1/ driver of offending vehicle filed Written Statement contending that the accident was happened only due to negligence on the part of the deceased, but not negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1. There is no rash and negligent act from the Respondent No.1.The offending vehicle is validly insured with the Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 had valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle.
6. Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company filed Written Statement contending that the manner in which the accident was occurred. The offending vehicle was not in moving condition on the date of accident as there was an act of mixing of concrete. There is no rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. While loading the mixture, the left leg of the deceased fell into mixture and that there was the neg
