THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2991 OF 2017 AND 3396 OF 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017, filed by the
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and
M.A.C.M.A.No.3396 of 2017 filed by claimants challenging the
quantum of compensation, are directed against the very same
award and decree, dated 18.08.2017 made in M.V.O.P.No.2032
of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Tribunal-
cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for
short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be
referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the claimants laid a claim
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one M.Anitha,
wife of claimant No. 1, mother of claimant Nos. 2 & 3, daughter-
in-law of claimant Nos. 4 & 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased"), who died in the accident that occurred on
24.05.2015. According to the claimants, on the fateful day,
while the deceased, along with her daughter and husband, was
2 MGP, J
Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017
proceeding by walk towards Darga near Anjali Theatre,
Secunderabad and when she reached near Balamrai Khaman,
Begumpet, at about 06:00 a.m., one Mini Bus bearing No.AP 28
TB 0511 proceeding from Paradise towards Bowenpally, came
on wrong side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and
dashed the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell
down on the road and received fatal injuries. Immediately, she
was taken to Sunshine Hospital and later, shifted to Gandhi
Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein the deceased succumbed to the
injuries while undergoing treatment. On a complaint, a case in
Crime No.284 of 2015 was registered under Section 304(A) IPC.
According to the claimants, the deceased was earning
Rs.15,000/- as a tailor and construction labour. On account of
the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their
bread winner and love and affection. Therefore, they laid the
claim against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the driver,
owner and insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., Mini Bus bearing No.AP 28 TB 0511.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3, insurance company filed counter stating that the respondent No.1 did not possess valid driving licence and respondent No. 2 did not possess valid documents 3 MGP, J Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017 and denied all the averments made in the claim-petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. It is specifically contended that the accident occurred only due to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and prays to dismiss the petition.
5. After considering claim and counter filed by the respondent No. 3 and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Mini Bus and has awarded an amount of Rs.16,83,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants respectively.
6. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.
7. The main contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017) is that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective 4 MGP, J Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017 and erroneously held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini bus. In fact, the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was walking on the road without observing the moving vehicles on the road. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence even on the part of the deceased. As regards the quantum of compensation, although the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by producing cogent documentary evidence, the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.72,000/- per annum. Therefore, the Tribunal has granted excessive and exorbitant compensation, which needs to be reduced. It is lastly contended that inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, the Tribunal ought to have fastened liability only on the driver and owner of the vehicle by exonerating the Insurance Company.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants (appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.3396 of 2017), has contended that since the claimants have asserted that the deceased was working as tailor and construction labour, in the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at 5 MGP, J Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017 Rs.15,000/- per month. As regards the contributory negligence, it is contended that in light of evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A.1 and A.2, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the same needs no interference.
9. As regards the manner of accident, it is the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in MACMA No. 2991 of 2017) that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence even on the part of the deceased as the deceased came on the road as pedestrian without observing the moving traffic and therefore, the Tribunal should have apportioned contributory negligence. As seen from the record, Ex.A.1, FIR, was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle. Further, after due investigation into the crime, police laid the charge sheet, Ex.A.2, against the driver of the offending vehicle stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the driver was charged for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC. That apart, P.W.1, the eyewitness to the accident, who was also co-walker along with the deceased, clearly stated that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mini bus by its driver. Though it is the case of the 6 MGP, J Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017 Insurance Company that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, for the reasons best known to it, the Insurance Company did not take any steps to summon the driver of the offending bus to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who is the best person to speak in this regard. Further, no contra evidence was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 1, eyewitness to the accident to discredit his testimony. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 & A.2, FIR and charge sheet, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and as such, the contention of learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company is hereby rejected.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the case of the claimants is that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as tailor and construction labour. However, in support of their claim, no documentary evidence is adduced. Considering the evidence and duly taking into consideration the age of the deceased the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, applying multiplier '18' as the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of the accident, awarded the total compensation of Rs.16,83,000/-
7 MGP, J
Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017
which cannot be said to be on higher side. Although it is
contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that the amount awarded by the tribunal under the conventional heads is on higher side, in view of the fact that no future prospects were taken into consideration by the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said amount. As regards the liability, except the self-serving statement that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license, no evidence in that regard was let in before the Tribunal and hence, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said contention. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. Accordingly, both the M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2991 of 2017 and 3396 of 2017 are dismissed confirming the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 20.03.2023 gms/tsr 8 MGP, J Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 2991 of 2017 and 3396 of 2017 20.03.2023 gms/tsr