* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN + M.A.C.M.A.NO: 350/2024 % Dated: 28.01.2025 # New India Assurance Company Ltd. …… Appellant and $ Sarika Pydiraju and 5 others ….. Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, Standing Counsel ^ Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4/

Claimants : Ms.P.Anuradha GIST :

>HEAD NOTE :

?Cases referred :

1 (2023 ACJ 1223) 2(2017) 16 SCC 680

3 1993 Supp.(4) Scc 100 (2 JJ.)

4(1996)6 SCC 1(3 JJ.)

5 1997(7) SCC 638 6 1996(4) SCC 255.

7 Air 1982 Madras 223

8 2023 ACJ 1655

9 2009(13) SCC 361(SC)

10.(1982) 60 FJR 118 (Kant)

11 1984 ACJ 238

122020(6) ALD 611

13MACMA No.1834/2012 decided on 16.06.2014

14AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 945

15 (2003) 7 SCC 484

162022 SCC OnLine SC 1683

17 AIR 2017 SC 5157 18(2018) 18 SCC 130 19 (2021) 11 SCC 780

202024 SCC OnLine SC 1901.

212015) 1 SCC 539

22(2021) 6 SCC 188

23(2021) 2 SCC 166

24(2020) 4 SCC 228

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.NO: 350/2024 Between:

New India Assurance Company Ltd ... Appellant and Sarika Pydiraju and 5 others ….. Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 28.01.2025 (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals.

3. Whether Their Lordship wishes Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN M.A.C.M.A.NO: 350/2024 JUDGMENT: (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Ms.P.Anuradha, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited is the appellant in the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(in short „the M.V.Act‟). The appellant is challenging the award dated 05.02.2024 in M.V.O.P.No.455 of 2018 (in short „MVOP‟) passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam(in short „the Tribunal‟).

The Tribunal allowed the MVOP.

Facts:

3. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants herein filed M.V.O.P under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of late Sarika Narasinga Rao in the motor accident dated 12.01.2018 at about 6.45 a.m. caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 25 W 9929 by its driver, the 5^th respondent herein; owned by the 6^th respondent herein and insured with the present appellant, who was the 3^rd respondent in the claim petition.

4. The claim petition was filed by four claimants including the widow, who died during pendency of the claim petition.

5. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

6. The insurance company filed counter, inter alia denying the averments of the claim petition and submitting that the claimants be put to strict proof of their case. It pleaded that the claimants were not entitled for the compensation nor for the interest.

7. The insurance company filed additional counter, pleading that the dependents of the deceased received benefits under the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short „E.S.I.Act‟). So,the claimants were not entitled for any compensation under the M.V.Act in view of Section 53 of the E.S.I Act.The insurance company was therefore not liable to pay any compensation.

8. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

“ 1. Whether the deceased Sarika Narasinga Rao died in road accident on 12.01.2018 at about 06.45 hours at Convent Junction, Visakhapatnam due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 25 W 9929 for which 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner and the 3^rdrespondent is the Insurer?

2. Whether the petiti