HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2485 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P. No.2534 of 2016 dated 21.08.2018, the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the Director General of Police and the Police Transport represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively have filed the present appeal.
2. According to the petitioners, on 31.08.2016 at about 4-15 p.m. the deceased was driving the auto bearing No. AP.24.V.4925 and while crossing the Kurmedu X road, car bearing No. AP.09.PB.0313 being driven by its driver came from Chinthapally side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the car and dashed the auto, due to which the deceased Jangaiah received grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, admitted as in-patient and while undergoing treatment, he died on the same day at 17.48 hours. According to the petitioners, the deceased Jangaiah was an auto driver, aged 54 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 2
MGP, J MACMA.No.2485 of 2019 Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- under various heads.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the claim is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Respondent No.3 also filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the claim is excessive and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the vehicle and as such, they are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the deceased died in the road accident occurred on 31.08.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing No. AP.09.PB.0313?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On 3 MGP, J MACMA.No.2485 of 2019 behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined and no documents were marked.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,31,600/- towards compensation along with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization to the claimants against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
8. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3-claimants. Perused the material available on record.
9. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and not due to the negligent driving of the driver of the car. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and awarded excessive compensation.
10. The learned counsel for the claimant sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the 4 MGP, J MACMA.No.2485 of 2019 age, avocation and income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
11. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration submitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, the evidence of PW-2 who is eyewitness clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Further the police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending car. No contra evidence was produced by the respondents with regard to the manner of accident. Therefore, considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car. Now another dispute raised by the counsel for Insurance Company in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
12. As per the evidence available on record, according to the petitioners, the deceased was auto driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was driving the auto at the 5 MGP, J MACMA.No.2485 of 2019 time of accident. Therefore, considering the avocation of the deceased as an auto driver and the accident occurred in the year 2016, the Tribunal had rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, added 30% towards future prospects and 1/3rd of it is deducted towards his personal expenses and by applying multiplier '9', awarded an amount of Rs.5,61,600/- towards loss of income. Further the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral and transport charges. Thus in all, the petitioners are awarded Rs.6,31,600/-, which is just and reasonable. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the cogent findings given by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 12.12.2022 pgp