THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.4190 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the award and decree, dated 30.07.2014 passed in O.P.No.63 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Boddu Rajesh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.05.2012. It is stated that on 09.05.2012 while the deceased, along with his friend Kasarapu Suresh, was returning to Jagtial on a motorcycle after attending some work at Polasa and when they reached near the electrical sub-station situated at the outskirts of Kalleda Village, the offending tractor attached with trailer being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent at high speed dashed 2 MGP, J Macma_4190_2014 the motorcycle, due to which the deceased died instantaneously and the pillion rider Kasarapu Naresh sustained grievous injuries. It is also stated that the deceased was aged about 19 years and was attending petty works and used to earn Rs.40,000/- per annum. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer, the claimants filed the claim-petition against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed common counter denying all the allegations, including the manner in which the accident occurred. They denied the very involvement of the tractor-trailer in the accident and it is stated that the tractor was parked near sub-station of Kalleda by the side of the road due to some defect and respondent No.1 did not drive the tractor on that particular day. It is further stated that the deceased was aged about 15 years as on the date of the accident and he was in intoxicated condition on that date, due to which he lost control and slipped from the bike and fell down, sustained head injury, which resulted his instantaneous death. It is also contended that initially the police registered a crime against one Nallella Ganganna and thereafter charge sheet was 3 MGP, J Macma_4190_2014 filed against respondent No.1 stating that he drove the offending tractor-trailer at the time of the accident in collusion with the police. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed before the Tribunal:-
1) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor- Trailer bearing No.AP 15 AW 6104/AP 1 U 7783?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
6. The impugned award discloses that subsequently, issue No.1 was re-casted stating that the claim was made under Section 163-A of M.V.Act, which reads as under:-
1. Whether there is any involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 15 AW 6104/AP-1-U- 7783 in the alleged accident?
7. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined but no documents were marked.
4
MGP, J Macma_4190_2014
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition holding that based on the evidence of R.W.3, who was shown as eyewitness to the accident in the charge sheet, there is no involvement of the tractor bearing No.AP 15 AW 6104 in causing the accident and the said tractor-trailer was falsely implicated. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants filed the present appeal.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimants have proved the involvement of the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 15 AW 6104/AP1U 7783 in the accident and, if so, what is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled to?
10. It is the case of the claimants that on 09.05.2012 while the deceased, along with his friend, was proceeding on motorcycle and when they reached near the electrical sub- station situated at the outskirts of Kalleda Village, the offending tractor-trailer bearing No.AP15 AW 6104/AP 1 U 7783 driven by 5 MGP, J Macma_4190_2014 respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorbike, due to which the deceased died on the spot and the pillion rider, Kasarapu Naresh, sustained injuries. It is no doubt true that initially, the crime was registered against one Nallela Ganganna as the driver of the offending vehicle. The contents of Ex.A.1, FIR and the contents of Ex.A.2, inquest panchanama, reveal that a numberless tractor attached with trailer bearing No. AP 1U 7783 driven by one Nallella Ganganna in rash and negligent driving, caused the accident. However, during the course of investigation, after examining the eyewitnes, one Manchala Mallesham, the Police came to know that in fact, the respondent No. 1 was driving the tractor bearing No. AP 15AW 6104 attached with trailer bearing No. AP 1U 7783 in rash and negligent manner and it is he who had caused the accident but not Nallella Ganganna. Thus, the police after recording the statement of Manchala Mallesham, came to know not only the involvement of the tractor and trailer belonging to the respondent No. 2 but also its driver being the respondent No. 1, but not Nallella Ganganna. Therefore, after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against respondent No.1. However, the tribunal did not consider 6 MGP, J Macma_4190_2014 Ex.A.3, charge sheet holding that though the claimats have exhibited the entire crime record, but for the reasons best known, they have not exhibited Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of R.W.3, Manchala Mallesham, on whose statement, during the course of investigation, the Police came to know that the respondent No. 1 was driving the tractor that belonged to the respondent No. 2.
11. In this regard, it is to be noticed that in a claim for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants have to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Bimla Devi Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation1. After the investigation and based on the eyewitness statement, the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against respondent Nos.1 and 2. In view of above reasons, the tribunal ought to have held that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor by respondent No.1. Hence, this Court holds that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 AIR 2009 SC 2819 7 MGP, J Macma_4190_2014 tractor and trailer owned by respondent No. 2, being driven by respondent No.1, who is none other the son of respondent No. 2.
12. Since this Court has decided that it is the driver of the Tractor-Trailer that has caused the accident, now this Court is inclined to determine the compensation based on the evidence adduced before the Tribunal treating the O.P. as has been filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The record reveals that no documentary evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar2, the Apex Court held that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably estimated minimum at Rs.3,000/- per month for any non-earning member. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others3. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-). Since 2 (2001) 8 SCC 197 3 2017 ACJ 2700 8 MGP, J Macma_4190_2014 the deceased was a bachelor, his personal living expenses shall be 50% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.2,100/- per month and after deducting the same, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,100/-. Since the age of the deceased was 19 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another4. Adopting multiplier 18, his total loss of earnings would be Rs.2,100/- x 12 x 18, which comes to Rs.4,53,600/-. That apart, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,86,600/-.
13. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another5, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh6 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 (2011) 10 SCC 756 6 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 9 MGP, J Macma_4190_2014 Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
14. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the award and decree, dated 30.07.2014 passed in O.P.No.63 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial. The appellants/claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.4,86,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Out of the said compensation, claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- each and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to Rs.43,300/- each. Both the respondents are jointly and 10 MGP, J Macma_4190_2014 severally liable to pay the said amount and they are directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J .11.2022 Tsr 11 MGP, J Macma_4190_2014 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.4190 of 2014 DATE: -11-2022