THE COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA RAO MACMA NO: 3183 OF 2018 & 212 OF 9010 MACMA NO: 3183 OF S>nift Nellore “ Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Between; ...APPELLANT / Respondent No.2 AND 1. Sandanamudi Sumathi, W/o.Late Sandanamudi Notknown. Sankaraiah, Age 28 yrs, Occ 2. Sandanamudi Gowrishankar, S/o Late Occ Notknown. 3. Sandanamudi Jaswanth, Late Sandanamudi Notknown. Sandanamudi Sankaraiah, Age 8 yrs. Sankaraiah, Age 5 yrs, Occ R^nlT Santhapet. Nellore City, ‘’y >^-r-ot^erl.e. ■•■RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS hS fro?;nrNagt sr^Sre^l^-’ ...RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT No.1

MAGMA N0:212OF2niQ Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act. 1988 against the Order and decree madeinM.y^O.P.No.247 of2015 Dated 22.03.2018 on the file of fhe NeNore^"’ Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Between: 1. Sandanamudi Sumathi, 10-1-47,Edgamitta, Santhapet, Nellore City SPSR Nellore District Edgamitta, Santhapet, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District ' 3. Sandanamudi Jaswanth, 10-1-47, Edgamitta, Santhapet, Nellore City SPSR Nellore District ...APPELLANTS / CLAIMANTS AND ^ D^trfct^*^^^'^ Basha, R/o 12/105, INdira Nagar.Sullurpeta, SPSR Nellore Lombardgeneral Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager, Near Madras Bus Stand, Nellore (R1 IS not necessary party to this appeal, as he was set exparte in the lower court) ...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS .Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the Appellants : SRI. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI mc«A 2,2,201,, Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI TALLURI VEERABHADRA RAO„„ 212,201,, The Court made the following: : SMT. S PRANATHI (In MACMA 3183/2019)

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3183 of 2018 and 212 of 2019 COMMON JUDGEMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Gopala Krishna Rao) The appellant in MAC.MANo.3183 of 2018 is 2'"'^ respondent/insurance company in M.V.O.P.No.247 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nellore and it filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 2. The appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.212 of 2019 are claim petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.247 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nellore and they filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. As both the appeals are filed against decree and order dated 22.03.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.247 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nellore, both the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Both the parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

2 CMR, J & VGKR, J MACMA Nos 3183 of 2018 & 212 of 2019 The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award 5. an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Sandanamudi Sankaraiah, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.10.2014. 6. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased, was travelling in a car bearing No.AP 26 AE 0879 as an invitee by the first respondent for the purpose of his own business and on 25.10.2014 at 0.30 hours when the said car was proceeding towards Sullurpet on NH-16, Peddapariya cross road, Ozili Mandal, the first respondent drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking the lorry, resulting which the car dashed the road side tree and in that accident the deceased Sankaraiah died on the spot. The 1®* respondent is owner-cum-driver and the 2"'^ respondent is Insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners. On 24.10.2014 the deceased 7. The first respondent was set ex parte.

J CMR, J & VGKR. J MAGMA Nos.3183 of 2018 & 212 of 2019 The 2'"'^ respondent/insurance company filed counter and 8. denied the allegations made by the claim petitioners in the petition and pleaded that the claim petitioners are not entitled any compensation from the second respondent. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the 9. following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car bearing registration No.AP 26 AE 0879? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and amount? 3. To what relief? During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of 2'^^ respondent, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.B1 and Exs.XI to 4 were marked. 10. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.47,23,090/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2^^^ respondent/insurance company 11.

4 CMR. J & VGKR, J MAGMANos.3183of 2018& 212 of 2019 filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3183 of 2018 and the claim petitioners filed MAC.MANo.212 of 2019. 12. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 13. Now, the points for determination are: 1) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? and 2) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? 14. POINT Nos.1 and 2 : In order to prove the contention of the petitioners, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the first petitioner and is none other than the wife of the deceased. PW2 is the eye witness to the accident. His evidence goes to show that he witnessed the accident from a distance of 200 meters from his car which was proceeding towards Sullurpet. In cross examination nothing was elicited to discredit the testimony of PW2. His evidence also clearly goes to show that the driver of the car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and due to his rash and negligent driving only the accident was occurred. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.

5 CMR. J & VGKR. J MAGMA Nos.3183 of 2018 & 212 of 2019 who drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. As per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged 15. about 48 years by the date of the accident. As per Ex.XI Service Register of the deceased, the date of birth of the deceased was 06.07.1966, the date of death of the deceased in a road accident was on 25.10.2014. Therefore, the deceased was aged about 48 years by the date of accident. It is not in dispute that the deceased Sankaraiah was Secondary Grade Teacher in M.P.U.P School, Nelapattu, Doravari Satram Mandal. As per Ex.X2 pay slip of the deceased, the net salary of the deceased was Ex.X2 was got marked Rs.49,196/- by the date of accident. As per the through Mandal Educational Officer i.e., PW3. evidence of PW3, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.57,296/- and his net salary was Rs.49,196/- per month. The Tribunal has considered the net income of the deceased as monthly income of the deceased by the date of accident. It was argued by the learned counsel for Insurance 16. company that the vehicle was hired by the first respondent. RW1

6 CMR, J & VGKR, J MAGMA Nos.3183 of 2018 & 212 of 2019 admits in his cross examination that the deceased was a third party to the vehicle and as per the policy, the occupant of car is covered under the policy as third party and the policy is a package policy. In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shanti Bopanna and others^ case, it was held that “in a package policy the liability of insurance company for a passenger travelling in a private vehicle is not absolved, because the deceased becomes a third party being neither insurer nor insured and the policy covers the occupants in a private car”. The B-register particulars i.e., Ex.X4 marked through the evidence of RW3 reveals that the seating capacity of the car is 5 and stands in the name of the 2^^ respondent and the policy is also in force and the permit is also valid. Ex.B1 shows that the policy obtained is a package policy and premium is paid for both 17. owner-driver. As per Ex.X3, the net salary of the deceased by the date of accident is Rs.49,166/- and the date of death of deceased as per Ex.XI is 25.10.2014 and the deceased was aged about 48 years. As per the decision of National Insurance Company Limited 18. 1 2017 AO 2045

7 CMR. J & VGKR. J 3183 of 2018 & 212 of 2019 magma Nos. deceased was a permanent Therefore, an of the deceased Vs. Pranay Sethi (CBf, here the employee and he was aged about 48 years. to the actual income If 30% of the income of the addition of 30% of income be taken as future prospects has to deceased i.e., Rs.14,750/- is added to of the deceased would be Rs.49,166, the total rs.63,916/- per month and the Tribunal deducted the After deduction of income tax of the deceased is of the deceased are three in be deducted from out of towards personal expenses of the income The annual income is Rs.7,66,992/-. amount of 30% towards income tax Rs.2,30,097/-, the net income i.e., Rs.5,36,895/-. Here the dependents number. Therefore, 1/3^^ income has to of the deceased If 1/3'"'^ income is deducted, contribution to the fam' y ,36,895-1,78,965). The deceased was net income deceased to Rs.3,57,930/- (5 comes aged about 48 years. The deceased as per the decision multiplier applicable to the age group of Sarla Varma is 13, Rs.46,53,090/- of the Therefore, the loss of dependency (3,57,930 X 13). Rs.40,000/- Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses loss of estate and the comes to amount of the first petitioner and and Rs.15,000/- towards Tribunal after giving cogent reasons. Tribunal also granted an The towards loss of consortium to 2 2017 (16) see 680

8 CMR, J & VGKR, J MAGMANOS 3183 of 2018 & 212of2019 granted an amount of Rs.47,23,090/- towards total compensation to the claimants. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the crime vehicle is insured with 2^^ respondent insurance company and the policy of offending vehicle is also in force and the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is also in force by the date of accident. No other legal evidence was adduced by the 19. respondents to establish that the terms of the policy were violated by the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the total compensation to the claim petitioners. 20. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record. granted an amount of Rs.47,23,090/- towards total compensation to the claim petitioners, the same is perfectly sustainable under law. Even the compensation awarded towards conventional heads also cannot be said to be on higher side. Therefore, we do not see any valid reasons to interfere with the quantum of compensation of Rs.47,23,090/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claim petitioners and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. So, the impugned award in granting total compensation of

9 CMR, J & VGKR. J MAGMANos.3183of 2018& 212 of 2019 Rs.47,23,090/- against the respondents is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in these appeals. 21. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.3183 of 2018 filed by the Insurance company and M.A.C.M.A.No.212 of 2019 filed by the claim petitioners are dismissed, while confirming the decree and order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nellore, in M.V.O.P.No.247 of 2015. No order as to costs in both the appeals. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed. SD/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Nellore 2. One CC to Smt. S Pranathi Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI Talluri Veerabhadra Rao Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies Psr PRK

HIGH COURT DATED: 16/06/2023 JUDGEMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.3183 of 2018 & 212 of 2019 ^ cbpfes Zltzllif DSi- DISMISSING THE MACMA

A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY.THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ^ AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA MACMA NO: 3183 OF 2018 & 212QF7niQ ROY RAO jyiACMA NO: 3183 OF Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 against the Order and decree 22.03.2018 on the file of the Court of the - I Additional District Judge, made in M.V.O.P.No. 247 of 2015 Dated Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum Nellore Between: 1 ...APPELLANT / Respondent No.2 AND 1. Sandanamudi Sumathi, W/o.Late Sandanamudi Notknown. 2. Sandanamudi Gowrishankar, S/o Late Occ Notknown. 3. Sandanamudi Jaswanth, Late Sandanamudi Notknown. Sankaraiah, Age 28 yrs, Occ Sandanamudi Sankaraiah, Age 8 Sankaraiah, Age 5 yrs, Occ (All are f^o H.No.10-01-47, Edgamittam Santhapet Nellore Citv ...RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS yrs ...RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT No.1

MAGMA NO: 212 OF 201Q Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 ^ made in M.V.O.P.No. 247 of 2015 Dated 22 03 2018 Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum Nellore against the Order and decree -• on the file of the Court of the - I Additional District Judge, Between; ^ Nellore Dfetrict Santhapet, Nellore City, SPSR 10-1-47, Edgamitta, Santhapet, SPSR Nellore District ^ NeNor^Di^lrfct'^^^'^^^^'^’ Santhapet, Nellore City, SPSR ...APPELLANTS / CLAIMANTS AND ^ Dfstrict^^'^^^'^ '’2/105, INdira Nagar.Sullurpeta, SPSR Nellore 2. ICICI Lombardgeneral Insurance Madras Bus Stand, Nellore rRf K not necessary p^rty to this appeal, as he eras set exparte In the lovrer ...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS annoai^l'if On for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Sd un^n material papers in the fnH I Q ^ arguments of Smt. S Pranathi, Advocate for the AoDellant PeM oner, and Sr, ™iun Veerabhadra Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 I nis uourt doth order and decree as follows: are Dismissed, as to costs in both the appeals Nellore City, r Company Ltd, Branch Manager, Near 1. Both MACMA Nos. 3182/18 & 212/19 2. That the no orders SD/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Nellore 2. Two CD Copies — cum - I Additional District psr

V*. HIGH COURT DATED: 16/06/2023 DECREE MACMA.No.3183 of 2018 & 212 of 2019 M- D5L- C9 ®^//« DISMISSING THE MAGMA