Telangana High Court
M/S. United India Insurance Company ... vs Ameena Begum on 22 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3320 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.2490 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The said M.V.O.P. filed by the petitioners therein seeking compensation for death of one Syed Wajeed Siddiq (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in an accident that occurred on 24.05.2016 was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 before the Tribunal i.e., the insurance company.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is mother and petitioner No.2 is brother of the deceased. The petitioners filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of death of the deceased. According to the petitioners, on 2 MGP,J MACMA_3320_2018 24.05.2016 at about 03:00 PM, the deceased was proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 28 V 8369 from Nizamabad to Hyderabad, when he reached opposite to Hamari Mitti Vidyalaya on National Highway No.44, near Kupriya Stage, Sadashiv Nagar, a TATA Ace auto bearing No.AP 25 W 6547 (hereinafter referred to as 'crime vehicle') being driven by its driver in high speed in rash and negligent manner in wrong route, dashed the auto, in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries, on the way, while he was being shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy. In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.71 of 2016 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. It is further case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 26 years and hale and healthy as on the date of the accident. He was expert in pan making and working as salesman at Panshop at Bavarchi Restaurant, Erragadda, Hyderabad, and was drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased used to maintain his family consisting of the petitioners and due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners being dependants on the deceased suffered loss of love and 3 MGP,J MACMA_3320_2018 affection, loss of dependency etc,. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present claim petition seeking compensation from respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.
5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as age, occupation, wages, and manner of the accident and also negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle. It is also contended that the claim of the petitioners is excess and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B-1 was got marked.
7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the petitioners have successfully established their case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,86,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 i.e., insurance company.
4
MGP,J MACMA_3320_2018
8. Heard, both sides.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 is that the Tribunal has not considered the contributory negligence by both vehicles involved in the accident. Further, without there being proper evidence the Tribunal has awarded huge amount towards compensation to the petitioners. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/petitioners contended that the Tribunal after considering all the aspects has granted just and reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as granted by the Tribunal?"
Point:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties. Petitioner No.1 got 5 MGP,J MACMA_3320_2018 examined herself as P.W.1, reiterated the contents of the claim petition got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. As P.W.1 is not eyewitness to the accident, she got examined P.W.2, who witnessed the accident. P.W.2 deposed that on the date of the accident, he was standing in front of a puncture shop at a distance of 15 feet from the place of the accident and he witnessed the accident. He deposed that the accident was only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle. The driver of the crime vehicle came in wrong direction and caused the accident. In cross-examination, P.W.2 denied the suggestions put to him. The petitioners also got examined P.W.3, who is owner of the pan shop in which the deceased was working as salesman.
13. Admittedly, Ex.A-1 copy of the First Information Report shows that based on complaint a case was registered in Crime No.71 of 2016 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and after thorough investigation charge sheet under Ex.A-2 was laid against the driver of the crime vehicle by the police. Ex.A-3 is inquest report and the same discloses that the deceased was working in a pan shop. Ex.A-4 postmortem examination report discloses that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. 6
MGP,J MACMA_3320_2018 Ex.A-5 is copy of motor vehicle inspector report, which shows that the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical default in the crime vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that on 24.05.2016 an accident occurred, deceased died in the said accident.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 mainly contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the contributory negligence by both vehicles involved in the accident. It is pertinent to state that a perusal of Ex.A-2 certified copy of charge sheet clearly shows that after thorough investigation the Investigating Officer opined that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, charge sheet was filed only against him. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, in which the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the contributory negligence of the driver of auto in which the deceased was travelling is unsustainable. 7
MGP,J MACMA_3320_2018
15. Coming to the aspects of age and salary of the deceased, the petitioners contended that the deceased was aged about 26 years as on the date of the accident and he was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month by working as sales man in pan shop. In this regard, the petitioners relied upon the salary certificate of the deceased under Ex.A-6 to prove his monthly income.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 i.e., the insurance company contended that the petitioners have not filed any age proof to show that the deceased was 26 years as on the date of the accident. It is pertinent to state that the petitioners have not filed any age proof to show the age of the deceased. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal relied upon the postmortem examination report under Ex.A-4 to come to the conclusion that the deceased was 26 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that said aspect has rightly been considered by the Tribunal and interference of this Court is not necessary.
17. Coming to the income of the deceased, the petitioner relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, who is employer of the deceased and also Ex.A-6 original salary certificate of the deceased, which shows 8 MGP,J MACMA_3320_2018 that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month towards salary. However, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A-6 i.e., salary certificate, as P.W.3 has not brought any record pertaining to the payment of salary to the deceased, who was working as sales man in pan shop. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that he is not maintaining any record to show the payment of salary to the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal held that except oral evidence and self serving salary certificate issued by P.W.3 under Ex.A-6, there is no concrete evidence placed on record by the petitioners to show that the deceased was working as salesman under P.W.3 and he was being paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month towards salary. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, which is just and reasonable and interference of this Court into the said aspect is unwarranted.
18. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal after considering all the aspects has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the petitioners, as such interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, the 9 MGP,J MACMA_3320_2018 contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 that without there being proper evidence the Tribunal has awarded huge amount towards compensation to the petitioners, is unsustainable.
19. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.2490 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 22.01.2024 GVR