Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Ghouse Peera Anr vs Chirlamcherla Venkateswarlu Anr on 27 September, 2022
BVLNC,J MACMA 208/2016
Page 1 of 8 Dt: 27.09.2022.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.208 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the
award dated 09.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.256/2014 on the file of
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Ongole,
wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition partly, awarded
compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date
of petition, till the date of deposit into Court for the death of Shaik
Nayab Rasool, who is son of the petitioners.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in
the lower Court.
3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an
application U/s.163-A, 167 and 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
brevity "the Act"), claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account
of the death of Shaik Nayab Rasool, who died in a road accident
occurred on 29.08.2013 being the driver of car bearing No.AP 27 AR
6752.
4. The facts show that on the night of 29/30.08.2013 when Shaik
Nayab Rasool, being the driver of the car bearing No.AP 27 AR 6752
BVLNC,J MACMA 208/2016
Page 2 of 8 Dt: 27.09.2022.
was coming on Dornala - Markapur Road and when the car reached a
turning at about 11.45 p.m. in between Devarajugattu - Markapur,
near 6 K.M. stone, he lost control over the vehicle and went towards
side of the road and turned turtle, due to which, the deceased and
another persons received injuries. Immediately, the deceased and
another injured were shifted to Govt. Hospital, Markapur and after
giving first aid, the deceased was shifted to Govt. General Hospital,
Guntur and while undergoing treatment on 20.10.2013 the deceased
succumbed to injuries and the Station House Officer, Pedaraveedu
Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.118/2013 for the offence
punishable U/s.304-A of I.P.C. At the time of death, the deceased was
earning Rs.6,000/- per month and due to the sudden demise of the
deceased, the petitioners lost their earning male member.
5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent herein, who is the 2nd
respondent in the petition, filed written statement denying the material
averments of the petition, and contended that the driver of the car
never drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner and caused
the accident and not having effective driving license at the time of
accident. The 1st respondent/owner of the said car was remained
exparte.
BVLNC,J MACMA 208/2016
Page 3 of 8 Dt: 27.09.2022.
6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased Nayab Rasool died in a road accident
which took place on 29.08.2013 at 11.45 p.m. on Dornala
Markapur road in between Markapur and Devarajugattu village
due to rash and negligent driving of Indica Vista Car bearing
No.AP 27 AR 6752 by its driver?
2. Whether the driver of the Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP 27
AR 6752 is having valid and effective driving license at the time
of accident?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so,
what amount and against whom?
4. To what relief the petitioners are entitled?
7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.W-1 and
got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral
or documentary evidence was adduced.
8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1
coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-11, held that the accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, and further, taking
into consideration of the evidence of P.W-1 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to
BVLNC,J MACMA 208/2016
Page 4 of 8 Dt: 27.09.2022.
A-11, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest @ 6%
P.A. from the date of petition, to the date of deposit into Court.
9. The plea of the Insurance Company is that the deceased himself
is responsible for the accident. It was pleaded that the accident had
occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
10. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on
the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. I do not find
any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons recorded by the
Tribunal on that issue.
11. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W-1 coupled
with Exs.A-1 to A-11, awarded an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- towards
compensation payable by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
12. The contention of the Appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal
failed to follow the Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred as Act), though the application was filed
U/s.163-A of the Act and the Tribunal instead of deducting 1/3rd of
compensation amount towards expenses for maintenance of the
deceased, had he been alive and deducted half of the compensation
amount.
BVLNC,J MACMA 208/2016
Page 5 of 8 Dt: 27.09.2022.
13. Admittedly, the application for compensation was filed by the
Appellants/claimants U/s.163-A, 167 and 168 of the Act, claiming
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of their son in a road
accident occurred on 29.08.2013 on Dornala-Markapur road, due to
rash or negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle belonging to
the 1st respondent/insured and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of
the crime vehicle.
14. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and other material
available on record has assessed the annual income of the deceased at
Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal deducted half of the amount towards
personal and living expenses and multiplied the same, by applying
multiplier of 18, by fixing the age of the deceased as 20 years as on the
date of accident.
15. The Tribunal held that the deceased is an unmarried person and
half of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses U/s.163-A of the Act and in support of the same, the
Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another1.
2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
BVLNC,J MACMA 208/2016
Page 6 of 8 Dt: 27.09.2022.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma'a case in para 12 of the
judgment on the question of deduction for personal and living
expenses held that "in fact one-third deduction, got statutory recognition
under Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims U/s.163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988". Therefore, in a case U/s.163-A of the
M.V.Act 1988, the deduction towards personal and living expenses
shall be 1/3rd of the income arrived by the Tribunal. Hence, this case
being filed U/s.163-A of the Act, deduction of half of the compensation
amount towards personal and living expenses by the Tribunal is liable
to be set aside.
17. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.40,000/- per annum. One third of the said amount shall be
deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as per
Schedule-II of the Act. The balance income would be at Rs.26,667/-
per annum. The multiplier applied in the case on hand is 18. Hence,
the compensation would be at Rs.26,667 x 18 = Rs.4,80,006/-. The
Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. As per
Schedule-II of the Act, the funeral expenses will be awarded at
Rs.5,000/-, apart from loss of estate at Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, as per
Schedule-II, funeral expenses awarded at Rs.5,000/-, apart from loss
BVLNC,J MACMA 208/2016
Page 7 of 8 Dt: 27.09.2022.
of estate Rs.2,500/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to
Rs.4,80,006 + 5,000 + 2,500 = Rs.4,87,506/-.
18. In the light of above discussion, the award passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be interfered.
19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, by setting aside the
award passed in M.V.O.P.No.256/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole, by granting
compensation of Rs.4,87,506/- to the claimants, with interest @ 6%
P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit into Court. Out
of the compensation amount of Rs.4,87,506/-, the 1st petitioner being
the father of the deceased is entitled for Rs.1,87,506/- and he is
permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest thereon and the
2nd petitioner being the mother of the deceased is entitled for
Rs.3,00,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw the same with accrued
interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J
27.09.2022
Psk
BVLNC,J MACMA 208/2016
Page 8 of 8 Dt: 27.09.2022.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.208 OF 2016
27th September, 2022
psk
