Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Changa Sitharamulu 2 Ors vs Y. Nageswara Rao Anr on 8 December, 2022

Bench: T Mallikarjuna Rao

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                       MACMA.No.184 OF 2012

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2006 in MVOP.No.201 of

2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal - Cum - III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Guntur (for short Tribunal), the claimants filed this appeal

being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter parties will be referred

to as they arrayed in MVOP.

3. The petitioners have preferred the claim under Section 163-A

Motor Vehicles Act for a compensation amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- for the death of their mother-Changa

Venkatamma in an accident that occurred on 03.09.1999 at

about 06.30 AM. The petitioners claimed that they are the

legal heirs of the said Changa Venkatamma. She will

hereinafter be referred to as the "deceased")

4. On the factual side, on 03.09.1999 at about 06.30 AM, the

deceased proceeded in a lorry bearing No.AEK 6557, as a

passenger from Hyderabad to go to Vijayawada, on the way to

the outskirts of Kumarabanda village, a lorry bearing

No.A.A.K.8951 (hereinafter be referred to as 'offending vehicle')

came behind the lorry in which the deceased was travelling

and dashed it, thereby she received severe injuries and died on

the spot. The said accident was reported to Kodada Rural

Police Station. A case was registered in Cr. No.114 of 1999 for

the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte

6. The 2nd respondent/insurance company filed a counter by

submitting that the lorry driver in which the deceased was

travelling stopped abruptly by applying sudden breaks. The

deceased fell on the road and died due to injuries but not due

to the alleged accident.

7. Based on the pleadings, the necessary issues were formulated

by the Tribunal for consideration. To substantiate the claim,

on behalf of claimants, PW.1 got examined and marked Exs.A1

to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 got examined and

marked Exs.B1 to B3.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle's driver. The Tribunal awarded

a compensation amount of Rs.17,000/- with proportionate

costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the

petition.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the

claimants/appellants and the counsel for the second

respondent. Perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants contends that

the Tribunal failed to appreciate that in a claim under section

163-A of the MV Act, the question of dependency would not

arise.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent

supported the findings and observations of the learned

Tribunal.

12. Now the points for consideration are,

I. Is the Tribunal justified in holding that the claimants are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency?

II. Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

POINTS :

13. In a claim filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, it is

incumbent upon the claimants to establish the accident, the

identity of the vehicle involved in the accident and the deceased

died due to injuries in the accident. They need not prove the

rashness or negligence of the offending vehicle's driver.

14. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing

No.AAK 8951. It also held that the first respondent is the

owner of the offending vehicle and the second respondent is

the insurer of the crime vehicle. As such, they are liable to

pay the compensation amount to the claimants jointly and

severally. The said findings of the Tribunal are not disputed

by the second respondent. The said findings have attained

finality. Since the claimants' case with regard to the manner

of the accident is not disputed by the respondents. The

claimants are able to establish the said fact by adducing

documentary evidence. The Tribunal has accepted the said

case of the petitioners and gave a finding as referred to above;

thus court finds that the details of the accident and the

evidence adduced regarding the manner of the accident need

not be discussed.

15. Now it is to be seen whether the Tribunal is justified in

holding that the deceased Venkatamma's sons are entitled to

the compensation amount under the head of loss of

dependency. The petition averments show that all the

claimants are majors at the time of filing the petition. In the

case between Kadeeja and others Vs. Managing Director,

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and another1,

the Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that in the case

of a claim under section 163-A, the person entitled to claim

compensation is a legal heir. It is further held that,

"For a claim under Section 163-A, the dependency has no relevancy because the person's legal heirs are entitled to apply for compensation for the death of the deceased are the legal heirs and not the legal representatives. Once the appellants prove that they are legal heirs of the deceased, then, in a claim under Section 163-A, they are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased. Legal representatives include legal heirs as well and not vice versa.

Once it is proved that death occurred on account of the use of the motor vehicle, the legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation, as provided under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicle's Act, which is based on only two factors, namely, the age of the deceased and annual income of the deceased."

16. Since this petition is filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act,

this court finds force in the contention of the appellants for a

claim under Section 163-A of the MV Act, dependency has no

relevance, and the claimants are entitled to compensation for

2014 ACJ 1492

the deceased's death. Considering the settled legal position,

this court views the Tribunal's finding is unsustainable. The

finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 43

years is not disputed.

17. To consider the loss of earnings is concerned, in Lakshmi

Devi and others Vs. Mohammad Tabber2, the Apex Court

laid down a principle that, in today's world, even common

labour can earn Rs.100/- per day. In view of the same, the

Tribunal should not have assessed the monthly income of

Rs.2,500/-.

18. Though the Tribunal has observed that the claimants have

not placed any evidence to show the deceased's earnings, this

court, by considering the age group of the deceased, the

multiplier '15' as per Second Schedule of Section 163-A of MV

Act, 1/3rd of income shall be deducted towards personal, and

living expenses of the deceased and 2/3rd shall be taken as a

contribution to the family. Therefore, Rs.24,000/-

contributed to the family per annum. Hence, the

compensation payable to the petitioners under the head of

loss of dependency, comes to 24,000 X 15 = 3,60,000/-. As

the claim under section 163-A of MV Act, an amount of

2008 ACJ 1488

Rs.2,000/- can be awarded towards funeral expenses, and an

amount of Rs.2,500/- can be awarded towards loss of estate.

Thus this court finds that the claimants are entitled to a

compensation amount of Rs.3,64,500/-. Since the petitioners

are the legal heirs of the deceased, the claimants are entitled

to the compensation amount awarded in equal shares.

19. The claimants are entitled to compensation beyond the compensation they claimed. While dealing with similar circumstances, in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 3, the Apex Court observed that, "The question was answered in the affirmative, holding that in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, wherefrom the evidence brought on record, if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass the such award. The only embargo is it should be just compensation; that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. Such observations were made in light of the provisions contained in sections 166 (1) and (4), 158 (6) and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."

20. The same was after that reiterated in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh4, in Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways5 and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi v.

2003 A.C.J. 12 (S.C.)

2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.)

2014 ACJ 692 (S.C.)

Kasam Daud Kumbhar6.

21. By following the principles laid down in the said citations

though the claimants have claimed only an amount of

Rs.1,25,000/-, this court views that an amount of

Rs.3,64,500/- can be awarded in the facts of the case.

22. As a result, the appeal is allowed without costs, re-fixing the

compensation amount of Rs.3,64,500/- by enhancing from

Rs.17,000/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date