THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 445 of 2014
JUDGMENT: -
1) Aggrieved by the impugned Order and Decree, dated
30.12.2010, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 213 of 2009 on the file
of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge, West Godavari, whereby, the
claim of Rs.3,68,530/- was awarded to the Claimants
towards compensation, this Appeal is preferred by the
Claimants claiming remaining balance compensation
amount, as prayed in the claim application.
2) For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the
Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim
application.
3) The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [the 'M.V. Act'], read
with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 [the
'Rules'] against the respondents claiming compensation of
Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of one Velagala Rama Linga
2
Reddy [the 'deceased'], in a motor vehicle accident that
took place on 06.07.2005.
4) Facts
germane to dispose of the Appeal in brief is as follows: -
i. On 06.07.2005 at about 2.30 P.M., near Neggipudi Village, when the deceased, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd to 4th petitioners, was proceeding on the road, at that time, one Maruthi Van bearing registration No.AP31 R 615 driven by the 1st respondent, who is the owner-cum- driver, which was insured with the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, due to that the deceased sustained grievous injury and was shifted to Government Hospital, Tanuku, for treatment, where he succumbed to injuries. A case in Crime No. 41 of 2005 was registered by the Police, Penumantra Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle van and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company 3 and, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
5) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle van remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent/insurance company filed written statement denying the claim of the claimants and pleaded that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation since the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased and prays to dismiss the petition.
6) Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:
(i) Whether the accident dated 6.7.2005 which resulted in the death of the deceased Velagala Ramalinga Reddy occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Van bearing Number AP31 R 615 by the 1st respondent as alleged in the petition?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?
(iii) To what relief?
7) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to 4 Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no witness was examined but Ex.B1 is marked.
8) At the culmination of the enquiry and on appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,68,530/- towards total compensation to all the claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants preferred this instant appeal for claiming remaining balance of compensation amount, as prayed in the claim application.
9) Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.
10) Now, the point for determination is:
i) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? If so, to what extent?
ii) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to remaining balance compensation amount, as prayed in the claim application?
11) POINT Nos. (i) & (ii): The case of the claimants is that, on 06.07.2005 at about 2.30 P.M., near Neggipudi Village, when the deceased was proceeding on the road, at 5 that time, one Maruthi Van bearing registration No.AP31 R 615 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed him, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died.
12) In order to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle van, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. On considering the evidence of PW2, Ex.A1 - attested copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A5 - attested copy of the charge-sheet, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the maruthi van bearing registration No.AP31 R
615. Ex.A2 - attested copy of the post-mortem certificate and Ex.A3 - attested copy of inquest report, goes to show that in the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later he was succumbed to injuries. By assailing reasons, the Tribunal rightly came to a conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending 6 vehicle van. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the award given by the Tribunal.
13) Coming to the compensation, the case of the claimants is that, the deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as a postmaster. In addition to the above, he used to earn Rs.3,000/- by doing leasehold cultivation by the date of his death. As per Ex.A6 - attested copy of the salary pay certificate of the deceased produced before the Tribunal, he deceased used to earn Rs.2,655/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the said amount as the income of the deceased and the Tribunal did not consider the amount of Rs.3,000/- income of the deceased for leasehold cultivation as claimed by the claimants.
14) The material on record shows that the contention of the claimants that the deceased was postmaster and used to receive Rs.2,655/- per month towards salary and in addition to the above amount, he used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month by doing leasehold cultivation. No doubt, no proof is filed by the claimants to show the income of Rs.3,000/- per month on leasehold cultivation by the 7 deceased. In the present case, the claimants are four in number and are dependents on the deceased. The claimants are none other than the wife and the children of the deceased. Naturally, the claimants who are the dependents of the deceased have to depend upon the income of the deceased. An amount of Rs.2,655/- per month is not sufficient to meet the necessities of the family members of the deceased, who are total five in number including the deceased. So, the deceased has to do other work for maintenance of the family. Naturally no documentary proof is available for leasehold cultivation of agricultural land. Therefore, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the deceased used to earn Rs.1,000/- per month i.e., Rs.12,000/- per annum for doing leasehold cultivation. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased is Rs.31,860/- [salary] + Rs.12,000/- [leasehold income per year]. The total annual income is Rs.43,860/-. The dependents on the deceased are four in number. As per the decision of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, 1/4th amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th is 1 2017 (16) SCC 680 8 deducted from out of Rs.43,860/-, an amount of Rs.32,895/- [Rs.43,860/- - Rs.10,965/-] is available to the dependents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about '45' years by the date of his death. Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 also goes to show the same. The relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is "14". Therefore, Rs.4,60,530/- [Rs.32,895/- x 14] is awarded to the claimants towards 'loss of dependency'. An amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of consortium' to the 1st claimant; an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards 'funeral expenses'. In total, a sum of Rs.4,90,530/- is awarded towards compensation to the claimants.
15) It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited and the policy is in force. In-fact, the Tribunal fastened the liability against both the respondents. No appeal is filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- [Rs.4,90,530/- - Rs.3,68,530/-] towards enhanced compensation with 9 interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
16) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claim of Rs.3,68,530/- awarded by Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,90,530/-. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Both the respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st claimant is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.47,000/- with interest therein and the 2nd to 4th claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- each with interest therein. No order as to costs.
17) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.
_____________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 30.10.2023/ Sm..
10
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 445 of 2014 .10.2023 sm