Telangana High Court
Chintapally Buchamma vs G Pavalkodi on 13 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.848 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter be referred as 'the Tribunal'), in O.P.No.389 of 2013, dated 17.04.2017, the claim petitioners in O.P filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 who is the mother and petitioner nos.2 to 4, who are the remaining children of petitioner No.1, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- with costs and interest on account of death of her son-Chinthapally Venkanna, hereinafter be referred as 'the deceased', in a motor vehicle accident on 04.03.2013. As per the claim petitioners, on 04.03.2013, as per the instructions of the employer of the deceased, the deceased along with Cleaner-Neelam Papaiah boarded a DCM Van bearing No.AP-07-TA-9680 and were proceeding towards Miryalguda and when they reached near Anjinipuram village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District, in the 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.848 of 2018 meantime, at about 9.30 A.M., one lorry bearing No.TN-52-D-6070 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the said DCM Van. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and while shifting him to Government Hospital, Gurajala, he died on the way. The other inmates of the said DCM van also sustained grievous injuries and one Neelam Papaiah also died. Based on a complaint, Police of Piduguralla Police station registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2013 against the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-52-D-6070 for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337 & 338 IPC and took up investigation. It is further contended by the claim petitioners that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 25 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as lorry driver and used to contribute the same for the maintenance of his family and due to death of the deceased, the petitioners became destitute and hence claimed compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- under various heads against Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.TN-52-D-6070.
4. Respondent No.1 did not contest the case and remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased and also stated that the driver of 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.848 of 2018 the lorry was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and further contended that as the driver, owner and insurer of the DCM Van were not added as parties to the claim, the said claim petition is not maintainable that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the deceased by name Chinthapally Venkanna died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.TN-52D-6070?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1 and also got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. However, Ex.B1- Copy of insurance policy was marked.
7. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.7,08,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.848 of 2018 dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the claim petitioners preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard the submission of Smt.Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for appellants/claim petitioners and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurance company-. Perused the record.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the appellants have proved their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon Exs.A1 to A6, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had awarded meagre amount towards compensation and hence, prayed to enhance the said compensation.
10. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now, the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?5
MGP,J MACMA.No.848 of 2018 POINT:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed by both sides. Claim petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident. As she is not an eye witness to the accident, she got examined PW2, who is a lorry driver and eye witness to the accident and who deposed that on 04.03.2013 in the morning hours, he boarded a DCM Van bearing No.AP-07TA-9680 at Piduguralla in order to go to Miryalguda and the deceased-
Chinthapally Venkanna along with his Cleaner-Nellam Papaiah, also boarded the same DCM van in order to go to Miryalguda. On the way at about 9.30 AM, when the DCM van reached Anjinipuram Village of Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur district and was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road, at that time, one lorry bearing No.TN-52/D-6070 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the DCM van due to which himself, the deceased-Chinthapally Venkanna and Cleaner-Neelam Papaiah and other inmates of DCM van received grievous injuries. Immediately, all of them were shifted to Government Hospital, Gurajala in '108' Ambulance. As the condition of the deceased was very serious, he was referred to Hyderabad and later he came to know that he died while undergoing treatment at Hyderabad. He also stated that the 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.848 of 2018 accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-52/D-6070 and police have recorded his statement. Though PWs 1 & 2 are cross-examined at length, nothing worthy was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
13. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with documents marked under Exs.A1 to A6, the learned Tribunal had answered issue no.1 in favour of the petitioners stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN52/D-6070 for which interference of this Court is not necessary.
14. Now, coming to the compensation awarded, it is pertinent to state that though PW1 claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month, but she has not filed any documentary proof evidencing the same. Though PW2, who is also a lorry driver, deposed in his evidence that he is getting income of Rs.2,500/-per month apart from commission, but the learned Tribunal felt that it would be reasonable to fix the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/- per month. This Court, by taking into consideration the minimum wages that are paid to a lorry driver in the year 2013 as per G.O.Rt.No.169, dated 05.02.2013, is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.7,436/-. As the deceased was aged 24 years as per post-mortem examination, 40% is added 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.848 of 2018 towards future prospects to the established income of the deceased as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 . Hence, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,410/-. Since the deceased is a Bachelor, if 50% is deducted towards his personal expenses, then the net monthly income comes to Rs.5,205/-. By applying relevant multiplier of '18' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2,the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,24,280/-. Further, the appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of estate and love and affection; Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, as awarded by the learned Tribunal which this Court also finds reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the total compensation for which the appellants are entitled is Rs.11,84,280 /-.
15. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,08,000/- to Rs.11,84,280/-. The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced compensation along with 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.848 of 2018 interest @ 7.5% p.a. within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Dt.13.02.2024 ysk