The National Insurance Com. Ltd., ... vs P. Vanajamma, Ananthapur Dist., 3 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1851 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.4133 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.198 of

2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum- District Judge, Ananthapur, and the respondents are the

petitioners and first respondent in the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed in claim application.

3. The petitioners filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents, praying

the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards

compensation on account of death of P.Madhusudhana Reddy, who

died in Motor Vehicles Accident occurred on 29.09.2004 at 5.30 a.m.

4. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the wife

and second and third petitioners are the children of the deceased

P.Madhusudhana Reddy and the deceased was aged about 48

years and was hale and healthy. The deceased loaded about 3,000 VGKRJ MACMA 4133 of 2012 Page 2 of 10 Dt:11.04.2023

KGs. of vegetables grown in his fields, into a van bearing No.AP 02

V 4540 to sell the same in Chennai market and was proceeding in

the same vehicle as owner of the goods and that on 29.09.2004 at

about 5.30 a.m. when the said vehicle was going near Damal colony,

Kanchipuran on NH-4 Bangalore-Chennai road, the driver of the

vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent and zig zag manner

and suddenly hit another vehicle going ahead and caused the

accident, in which the deceased and two others, who were sitting in

the same van, died on the spot and the petitioners claimed an

amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counters by denying the claim

application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any

compensation and the respondents are not liable to pay any

compensation to the petitioners.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred on 29.09.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., VGKRJ MACMA 4133 of 2012 Page 3 of 10 Dt:11.04.2023

Swaraj Mazda bearing No.AP 02 V 4540 by its driver and caused the death of the deceased?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent?

iii. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined

and Ex.A1 to Ex.A412 were marked. None were examined on

behalf of respondents, however, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked.

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

given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.2,18,000/- to the petitioners towards

compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/Insurance

company filed the present appeal.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

 VGKRJ                                              MACMA 4133 of 2012
Page 4 of 10                                        Dt:11.04.2023




11.     POINT :-

The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the wife

and second and third petitioners are the children of the deceased

P.Madhusudhana Reddy and the deceased was aged about 48

years and was hale and healthy. The deceased loaded about 3,000

KGs. of vegetables grown in his fields, into a van bearing No.AP 02

V 4540 to sell the same in Chennai market and was proceeding in

the same vehicle as owner of the goods and that on 29.09.2004 at

about 5.30 a.m. when the said vehicle was going near Damal colony,

Kanchipuran on NH-4 Bangalore-Chennai road, the driver of the

vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent and zig zag manner

and suddenly hit another vehicle going ahead and caused the

accident, in which the deceased and two others, who were sitting in

the same van, died on the spot.

12. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1

and PW2. PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. Petitioners

got examined one coolie, who worked under the deceased as PW2.

He deposed in his evidence that while the deceased was travelling VGKRJ MACMA 4133 of 2012 Page 5 of 10 Dt:11.04.2023

in a lorry along with vegetables, which were cropped in his land, as

a owner of the goods, in which he is a coolie and when the lorry

reached near Damal Colony on NH-4 near Kanchipuram on

Bangalore - Chennai road at about 5.30 a.m., the driver of the

offending vehicle drove the same with high speed in a rash and

negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and suddenly hit

another vehicle which was going ahead and caused the accident.

13. The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 certified copy of

First Information Report and Ex.A4 certified copy of Charge Sheet

clearly goes to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned

Tribunal also came to the said conclusion. There is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

14. The petitioners 1 to 3, who are the wife and children of the

deceased are claiming compensation of amount of Rs.10,00,000/-

against the respondents 1 and 2. The first respondent is the owner

of the offending vehicle and the second respondent is insurance

company with which the first respondent insured the crime vehicle

and policy is also on force. The contention of the Insurance VGKRJ MACMA 4133 of 2012 Page 6 of 10 Dt:11.04.2023

Company is that the deceased P.Madhusudhana Reddy and others

are unauthorized passengers and travelled in the crime vehicle. In

order to prove the same, no evidence is adduced by the

respondents. The evidence on record proves that the deceased

engaged the offending vehicle and loaded the vegetables in the

vehicle and the said vegetables are cropped in his fields. The

petitioners also filed Ex.A11 certificate issued by the Panchayat

Secretary of the village. The said Panchayat Secretary clearly

stated in the said certificate that the deceased was an agriculturist

and was having landed property of Ac.25.00 cents and he raised

groundnuts, sun flower, flowers etc., and his net income per year

was Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 clearly shows that the accident

occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle, which was engaged by the deceased and he was

carrying his own vegetables in the said offending vehicle to sell

them in Chennai market.

15. To rebut the said evidence, no contra evidence is adduced by

the respondents. On the other hand Ex.A1 certified copy of First

Information Report clearly shows that the Village Administrative VGKRJ MACMA 4133 of 2012 Page 7 of 10 Dt:11.04.2023

officer, Kanchipuram gave a report that the vehicle was involved in

the accident because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was having with load

of vegetables.

16. As per Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy, the crime vehicle mini

van is insured with the Insurance Company/ second respondent and

the policy is also on force. Another contention taken by the learned

counsel for Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending

vehicle is not having any valid driving licence. In order to prove the

same the respondents examined the Senior Assistant in

R.T.O.Office, Hindupur as RW2. She stated in her evidence that

Ex.B2 is the copy of B.Register extract. Ex.B3 is the true copy of

driving licence extract of M.Satyanarayana, who is the driver of

offending vehicle and the said driver is having driving licence for

Light Motor Vehile of transport and non-transport and it is valid upto

20.03.2021 and the said licence was issued on 21.03.2001. Here

the date of accident is 20.09.2004, therefore, by the date of accident,

the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid and effective driving

licence to drove the offending vehicle.

 VGKRJ                                          MACMA 4133 of 2012
Page 8 of 10                                    Dt:11.04.2023

17. The contention of the petitioners is that the deceased was

earning Rs.1,00,000/- per year. No cogent evidence is adduced by

the claimants to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.1,00,000/-

per year and taking into consideration of the facts and

circumstances of the case, the income of the deceased was fixed

notionally at Rs.2,000/- per month by the Tribunal. no appeal is filed

against the said finding by the claimants and the annual income of

the deceased is fixed as Rs.24,000/- and here the dependents are

three members, 1/3 income is deducted from Rs.24,000/- towards

personal expenses of the deceased and it comes to Rs.16,000/- per

year and the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased

is '13' and it comes to Rs.2,08,000/- (Rs.16,000/- x 13 =

Rs.2,08,000/-). The first petitioner was granted an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, the learned

Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,18,000/- to the petitioners

towards compensation. Against the said finding, no appeal is

preferred by the petitioners. On considering the material available

on record, the learned Tribunal rightly granted compensation of

Rs.2,18,000/- to the petitioners against both the respondents and

the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the entire compensation.

 VGKRJ                                           MACMA 4133 of 2012
Page 9 of 10                                     Dt:11.04.2023

There is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the

learned Tribunal.

18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J Dated:11.04.2023.

sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 4133 of 2012
Page 10 of 10                              Dt:11.04.2023






          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




                   M.A.C.M.A.No.4133 of 2012



                          11.04.2023

sj