Telangana High Court
Pandula Maramma And Another vs Narla Krishna Rao And Another on 23 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.1749 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 22.08.2005 in O.P.No.1196 of 2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge at Nalgonda, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
2. Heard Smt. P. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Smt. P. Satya Manjula, learned standing counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire material on record.
3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the Tribunal has dismissed the same.
4. The deceased is the unmarried son of claimant No.1 and brother of claimant No.2.
5. According to the version of the claimants, on the day of accident, the deceased as cleaner proceeded on a lorry bearing No.AP 28T 6611 for loading sand. The driver of the said lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit a parked lorry bearing No.ATT 1899. Iron rods protruding KS, J MACMA_1749_2008 2 from the body of the parked vehicle and there was no indication for other drivers of vehicles to know about the iron rods.
6. On account of the impact, the deceased died and accordingly, claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
7. The learned Tribunal judge found that the charge sheet was filed against the lorry driver in which the deceased was present. Since the driver of the lorry which was parked on the road was not responsible for the accident according to the charge sheet, the Tribunal refused to grant compensation. Further, neither the insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling nor its owner were made as parties to the claim petition.
8. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the petition was filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act which means fault need not be proved and it is a no fault liability. For the reason of not making the insurer of the lorry in which the deceased was travelling will have no effect in view of the specific provision under Section 163-A of the MV Act. She relied on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in case of Shahazadi Bee and others v. Managing KS, J MACMA_1749_2008 3 Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 1 and also judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in case of Thogati Veeranjaneyulu v. Syed Basha and another2.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has specifically found that the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was travelling was at fault and charge sheet was filed against him under Section 304-A of IPC. In the said circumstances, the compensation was rightly denied.
10. Having gone through the record, it is evident that charge sheet vide C.C.No.132 of 1997 was filed on the file of JFCM, Ramannapet, against the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was travelling. However, he was not convicted. Admittedly, the alleged offending lorry was parked on the road and there is nothing on record to show that there were any parking lights on or any indication made by the driver to the effect that the lorry was parked on the road. Further, the iron rods were protruding out of the body of the lorry. In fact, Section 163-A of the MV Act gives liberty to the claimants to be selective regarding claim for compensation. Only for the reason of not making the owner and insurer of lorry, in which the deceased was travelling as a party will not disentitle the claimants from 1 2003 (5) ALD 127 (DB) 2 2022 (1) ALT 161 (AP) KS, J MACMA_1749_2008 4 proceeding against the owner and insurer of lorry which was parked on the road.
11. For the said reasons, finding of the Tribunal refusing to grant compensation is set aside. However, neither the owner nor driver of lorry, on which the deceased was working as cleaner, were examined to substantiate his salary. For the said reasons, in accordance with Second Schedule of the MV Act, this Court is inclined to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.21,000/- and accordingly, grant compensation.
12. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation 3 , if 50% of the income is deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be Rs.10,500/-. As per Schedule II of the Act, the relevant multiplier for the said age of the deceased is '18'. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,89,000/- (Rs.10,500 X 18).
13. As regards the consortium to be paid, claimant No.1 is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Pranay Sethi (3 Supra). With regard to the funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/-. 3
2009(6) SCC 121 KS, J MACMA_1749_2008 5
14. Therefore, the claimants are awarded the compensation as below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.1,89,000
(2) Funeral expenses and Loss of Estate Rs.30,000
(3) Loss of filial consortium Rs.40,000(for 1st claimant)
Total compensation awarded Rs.2,59,000/-
15. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 22.08.2005 in O.P.No.1196 of 2002 and the claimants are granted compensation of Rs.2,59,000/-, as hereunder:
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The claimants shall pay the court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation.
(c) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the amount jointly and severally within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment, to the credit of claim petition along with accrued interest. On such deposit, claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security.
(d) Amounts shall be apportioned in the ratio of 75:25 to claimant Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
KS, J MACMA_1749_2008 6 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 23.07.2024 gvl