Telangana High Court
Smt.Nanavath Rani And 5 Ors vs Sreepathi Narsimha Reddy And Anr on 19 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A. No.857 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by the order, dated 23.11.2012, in O.P.No.446 of 2009 passed by the Principal District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. The grievance of the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal has granted only 50% of the compensation as claimed by them, on the ground that there was an element of contributory negligence on behalf of the deceased.
3. The brief facts of the case are that while the deceased who was returning home on his motorcycle from Meerpet village and when he reached near Virat Nagar, opposite Shilpi Kitchen, in the mid night at about 12.00 hours, respondent No.1 drove his vehicle in the opposite direction in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down and died on the spot due to the head injury.
2
4. The facts regarding accident, income of the deceased and other aspects as claimed by the claimants, are not disputed. However, the Tribunal has found that the vehicles were in the middle of the road, for which reason, it can be safely assumed that there was head-on collision resulting in contributory negligence of the deceased/driver. The Tribunal relied on the scene of offence panchanama i.e. Exhibit-A.4 and also the evidence of RW-1/Chandrashekar Reddy was legal retainer of the Insurance company. According to his evidence, had the deceased been cautious, he could have avoided the accident and it is apparent that the there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased in driving his motorcycle, for which reason, the claim has to be dismissed.
5. Having gone through the evidence of RW-1 and also Exhibit-A.4 - scene of offence panchanama, both the vehicles are shown to have fallen on the left side of the road and blood stains on the right side. It is not the case that the vehicles were shifted where the accident had taken place. When both the vehicles are shown as fallen on the left side of the road, the question of there 3 being contributory negligence on the part of the deceased does not arise. It is not a case where the deceased had driven his vehicle on the right side of the road. PW.2 - eye witness to the accident, had specifically stated that it was a 20 feet wide single road where the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction and hit the vehicle of the deceased, resulting in the deceased falling down on the road due to which he received head injuries and instantaneous death.
6. The finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is without any basis for the reasons mentioned above. The evidence of RW-1 is on the basis of assumption and Exhibit-A.4, as he was not present at the scene. In the background of both the vehicles being found on the left side of the road in which direction the deceased was travelling, it cannot be said that the deceased contributed to the accident. In the said circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal to the extent that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is hereby set aside.
7. Since the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is disbelieved by this Court, the quantum of 4 compensation arrived at by the Tribunal at Rs.25 lakhs is upheld. The direction of the Tribunal regarding apportionment of the compensation amount and other aspects shall remain unaltered.
8. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.12,50,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/-. The difference amount shall be deposited by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. On such deposit, claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount without furnishing the security.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
______________ K.SURENDER Date: 19.02.2024 KTM/BMS