APHC010373372006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Thursday, the Sixteenth day of April two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.170 of 2006 Between:

M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant and Pavada Chinnabbai @ Appala Naidu and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant:

1. Gudi Srinivasu Counsel for the respondents:

1. Godey Satish The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and the award dated 16.11.2004 in M.V.O.P. No. 434 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada.

2. The appellant is the respondent No.3, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 are the claimants and the respondents Nos.4 and 5 are the respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of the deceased, who is the son of the claimants Nos.1 and 2 and brother of the claimant No.3 in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 13.06.2000 while he was travelling in a trailer bearing No.AP 5X 6904 attached to a tractor bearing No.AP 5P 3897 and the driver drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which, the deceased fell down from the vehicle and the wheels of the trailer ran over him causing instantaneous death. The claimants stated that the deceased was aged 19 years old, unmarried and was working as a jattu coolie earning Rs.100/- per day and contributing to the family of the claimants.

4. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 are driver and owner of the tractor- trailer, remained ex parte. The respondent No.3 / insurance company resisted the claim petition.

5. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. Ex.A1 is the attested Photostat copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.57 of 2000 of Annavaram P.S., dated 13.06.2000, exhibit A2 is the attested photostat copy of post mortem certificate; exhibit A3 is the attested photostat copy of the M.V.I. report; exhibit A4 is the attested photostat copy of the charge sheet. Ex.B1 is the policy copy and exhibit B2 is the certified copy of the inquest report, dated 14.06.2000.

6. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,66,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with joint and several liability of the respondents Nos.1 to 3.

7. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was filed contending that the deceased was travelling in the trailor which was not insured with the appellant as established under Ex.B.1 which was insured only in respect of the tractor. It was also contended that the Tribunal ought to have decided whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation since the deceased died as the wheels of the trailer ran over him. It was also contended that a multiplier ‘16’ applied by the Tribunal is incorrect as the deceased was unmarried (age of the mother ought to have been taken to choose the multiplier). It is further contended that the Tribunal erroneously awarded Rs.50,000/- towards future expectancy of life in addition to the loss of dependency, pain and suffering, love and affection and mental agony.

8. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 / claimants engaged a counsel for their appearance before this Court. However, since the counsel passed away, notices were sent to them. Despite service of notices on them, there has been no further appearance for them.

9. Notice sent to the respondent No.4 / R-1 and R-5 were returned unserved. In fact, they remained ex parte before the Tribunal. As such, notice to them can be dispensed with in the appeal as per Order XLI, Rule 14(1) C.P.C. as applicable to the State of A.P.

10. The le