THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
MACMA.Nos.2931, 3858 and 4415 of 2012 and MACMA.No.327 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT:
All these appeals arise out of same accident. However, four different OP's were filed by the claimants of the each deceased before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khammam.
2. The facts of the case, as recorded in the respective OP's, are as under:
OP.No.1354 of 2009:
The claimant No.1 is the wife; the claimant Nos.2 to 4 are minor daughters and the claimant Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased, Bondadu Veerabhadra Rao. On the date of the accident, the deceased along with one Pirla Bullabbai @ Rambabu engaged a lorry bearing No.AP-24/W-0318 at Prathipadu cross roads, East Godavari District, by paying charges, to go to Konijerla in order to sell Tamarind bags. The driver of the lorry drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which the lorry turned turtle, as a result, the deceased and Pirla Bullabbai @ Rambabu sustained serious injuries to their heads and vital parts and died on the spot. The deceased was doing tamarind business and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, aggrieved by the grant of compensation, the insurance company preferred MACMA.No.3858 of 2012.
OP.No.1355 of 2009:
The claimant No.1 is the wife; the claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor sons and the claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased, Pirla Bullabbai @ Rambabu. On the date of the accident, the deceased along 2 with one B. Veerabhadra Rao, engaged a lorry bearing No.AP-24/W- 0318 at Prathipadu cross roads, East Godavari District, by paying charges, to go to Konijerla in order to sell Tamarind bags. The driver of the lorry drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which the lorry turned turtle, as a result, the deceased and B. Veerabhadra Rao sustained serious injuries to their heads and vital parts and died on the spot. The deceased was doing tamarind business and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, aggrieved by the grant of compensation, the insurance company preferred MACMA.No.327 of 2014.
OP.No.1356 of 2009:
The claimant No.1 is the wife; the claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the minor daughters and minor son of the deceased, Sunkara Krishna Murthy. On the date of the accident, the deceased along with one Petta Subba Rao, engaged a lorry bearing No.AP-24/W-0318 at Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, by paying charges, to go to Sathupalli along with flower plots The driver of the lorry drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which the lorry turned turtle, as a result, the deceased and Petta Subba Rao sustained serious injuries to their heads and vital parts and died instantaneously. The deceased was doing flower plants business and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.3,59,000/-. Hence, aggrieved by the grant of compensation, the insurance company preferred MACMA.No.2931 of 2012.
3OP.No.1357 of 2009:
The claimant No.1 is the father; the claimant No.2 is the mother and the claimant No.3 is the sister of the deceased, Petta Subba Rao. On the date of the accident, the deceased along with one Sunkara Krishna Murthy, engaged a lorry bearing No.AP-24/W-0318 at Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, by paying charges, to go to Sathupalli along with flower plots The driver of the lorry drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which the lorry turned turtle, as a result, the deceased and Petta Subba Rao sustained serious injuries to their heads and vital parts and died instantaneously. The deceased was doing flower plants business and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The tribunal below, after considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and after deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, awarded compensation of Rs.3,31,000/-. Hence, aggrieved by the grant of compensation, the insurance company preferred MACMA.No.2931 of 2012.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company submitted that the deceased persons in all the four appeals have to be treated as gratuitous passengers on goods vehicle and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased. The deceased have boarded the lorry midway. The tamarind bags and flower plants, as the case may be, cannot be treated as goods and they can be treated only as luggage as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per Ex.B1, insurance policy, only owner of the goods vehicle is covered.
4
5. There is no serious contest by the insurance company as regards the involvement of the offending lorry in the accident. The insurance company also did not press the issue as to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which, ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased persons.
6. There cannot be any doubt that the deceased persons were travelling in the lorry on the fateful day. It is immaterial whether the deceased were gratuitous passengers or owner of the goods. Even assuming that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms of the policy, in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SWARAN SINGH1 the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, in case, the insurance company is able to prove that the terms of the insurance policy are violated. Insofar as quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, as there was no direct evidence with regard to income of the deceased, the tribunal below fixed the daily wage prescribed by the Government as the income of the deceased persons and the basic monthly income was taken as the notional income, which is just and reasonable.
In view of the above, this Court doest not find any merit in the civil miscellaneous appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J February 15th, 2021 DSK 1 2004 ACJ 1