Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mindela Venkateswarlu And ... vs P.H.S. Srirama Murthy And 2 Others on 22 September, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
MACMA.No.1676 OF 2013
JUDGMENT :
1. Aggrieved by the award dated 04.05.2006 in MVOP.No.149 of 2002
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum -
Judge - IV Additional District Judge, Ongole, (for short 'the
Tribunal'), the petitioners/appellants filed this appeal to
dissatisfying compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the
tribunal instead of awarding the total compensation amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by them.
2. For convenience sake, hereinafter the parties will be referred as
they were arrayed in MVOP.No.149 of 2002.
3. The claim made by the petitioners i.e., the 1st petitioner is the son,
2nd petitioner is wife of deceased under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles At
by submitting that on 24.08.2000 the deceased by name Mindela
Subbarayudu along with some others with a view to go to Kasmoor
(Nellore) from Yelchuru boarded a lorry bearing No.ATS4869 and
when the said lorry reached near spinning mill, Maddipadu on
25.08.2000 at 02.30 hours and lorry bearing No.AP7T9846 came in
opposite direction and dashed against the lorry due to which the
deceased received injuries and then the deceased was taken to
Government Hospital, Ongole where he died and the accident was
due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry.
4. The 2ndrespondent/insurance company filed counter by contending
that there was collision of lorry ATS4869 and lorry bearing
No.AP7T9846, therefore the owner and insurance company of lorry
ATS4869 in which the petitioners and others were travelling are
MACMA.No.1676 OF 2013
necessary and proper parties. Originally the crime vehicle was
bearing No.TN1N0933 was registered as AP7T9846 and the name of
the insured is Srirama Murthy, but not P.H.S.Srirama Murthy and
there is no policy in the name of 1st respondent. The vehicle in
which the petitioners travelling is a goods vehicle. Therefore the
petitioners are not entitled to claim any amount. The respondent
does not admit that the driver was having valid and subsisting
driving license to drive the vehicle. The accident was due to
negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing No.ATS4869 only.
5. Based on the pleadings the Tribunal formulated issues. Before the
Tribunal on behalf of petitioners PWs.1 and 2 were examined and
Exs.A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of 2ndrespondent RW.1
was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and
respondent and perused the record.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that the
tribunal failed to consider the evidence of petitioner and the
documents relied upon by them and tribunal grossly erred in
awarding compensation due to the death of the deceased and also
failed to consider the age of deceased and his earnings and ought
not to have solely relied on postmortem report. The learned counsel
for respondent appreciated the findings and observations of the
tribunal.
8. Now the point for determination is the award passed by the learned
Tribunal is just and reasonable amount to the claimants and it
requires enhancement ?
MACMA.No.1676 OF 2013
POINT:
9. After careful reading of the material on record it can be seen that
the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident
is not disputed. The learned tribunal has given a specific finding
that the lorry of 3rd respondent came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the lorry, in which the deceased was
travelling. The said finding given by the tribunal is not disputed by
the 3rd respondent/insurance company by filing appeal or cross
objections and the said finding became final. In view of the same
this court is of view that it is quite unnecessary to narrate the
factual aspects of the case in detail. The dispute is only with regard
to the quantum of compensation amount awarded by the tribunal.
The respondent/insurance company has also not disputed the
quantum of compensation amount as awarded by the tribunal and
its liability to pay such compensation amount. The finding of the
tribunal that it is for the insurance company to establish that the
owner of the vehicle had knowledge of the fact that the driver did
not possess the license and allowed him to drive the vehicle and in
absence of such evidence the insurance company is liable and the
said finding is also not challenged by the insurance company and it
has also become final.
Regarding compensation amount :
10. According to the case of claimants the deceased was aged around
60 years at the time of his death. But in the postmortem report the
age of the deceased is shown as 70 years. The tribunal has
considered the postmortem report and taken the age of the
deceased as 70 years. It is the specific case of petitioners that the
deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. The 1st petitioner
though deposed in his evidence about the earnings of the deceased
MACMA.No.1676 OF 2013
as PW.1 at Rs.4,000/- per month, but in the petition it is claimed
as Rs.2,000/- per month, nothing is elicited in the cross
examination to discredit the evidence of PW.1 regarding the
attending of agricultural works by the deceased. In the said facts of
the case the observation of the tribunal that because the deceased
was an old man and he could not have carried out the agricultural
works at the age of 70 years is without any basis. However the by
cosidering the age of deceased this court is inclined to hold that
there was possibility of earnig ofRs.1500/- per month by the
deceased by attending agricultural works and thereby his annual
income estimated to be Rs.18,000/-.Out of the earnings of the
deceased 1/3rd of the amount shall be deducted towards his
personal and living expenses. The relevant multiplier to the age
group of the deceased as per the decision in between Sarala Verma
and others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation1 is five. Thus the
annual loss of comes to Rs.12,000/- X 5 = Rs.60,000/-. This court
is view that an amount of Rs.40,000/- can be awarded towards
conventional heads.
11. In said facts of the case this court is of view that the tribunal has
not properly appreciated the evidence adduced on behalf of both
sides in assessing the compensation amount. For the above reasons
above this court is of view that the petitioners are entitled to
compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed in the petition.
12. For the reasons stated above this court is of view that petitioner is
entitled to enhancement compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
from Rs.50,000/- with interest.
2009 ACJ 1219
MACMA.No.1676 OF 2013
13. Resultantly the appeal is allowed without costs by increasing the
compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.50,000/- with
interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the balance compensation amount within one
month from the date of this order. The 2ndpetitioner is entitled to the
enhanced compensation amount with interest being the wife of
deceased. In all other aspects the order passed by the Tribunal is
unaltered. The petitioners are entitled to withdraw the compensation
amount on deposit by filing proper application before the Tribunal.
14. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date :22 .09.2022.
BV/KGM
MACMA.No.1676 OF 2013
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
MACMA.No.1676 OF 2013
Date : 22.09.2022
BV/KGM
