Vegi Nagamani Died And 3 Others vs Nakka Satyanarayana And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2079 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No. 1190 of 2012

JUDGEMENT:

The appellants are claim petitioners and the respondents are

respondents in M.V.O.P.No.185 of 2007 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, East

Godavari at Amalapuram. The appellants filed the appeal

questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

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

arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- for the loss of life of Vegi Ramaswamy in a motor

vehicle accident which took place on 10.10.2006 at 11.00 p.m. near

Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Yerramsettivaripalem of East Godavari

District.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are

as follows:

VGKR,J MACMA No.1190 of 2012

On 10.10.2006 at 11.00 p.m. the deceased was proceeding on

his Hero Honda CD 100 motor cycle to Bellampudi to attend a

serious case on left side of the road. When he reached

Anjaneyaswamy temple, Yerramsettivaripalem, the 1st respondent,

driver of an auto bearing registration No.AP 20V 5152, proceeding

towards P.Gannavaram came in opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the

deceased. As a result of which, the deceased hit nearby cement

pole and fell into a nearby irrigation canal and drowned and died on

the spot. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner

and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle and

hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained set ex parte. The 3rd

respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying

the manner of the accident.

6. Basing on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

VGKR,J MACMA No.1190 of 2012

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Auto B.No.AP 20V 5152 by its driver 1st respondent?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners,

P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On

behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got

marked Exs.B.1 to B.4. Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked through

R.W.2.

8. Basing on the material available on record, the Tribunal came

to a conclusion that the claim petitioners failed to prove that

because of the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver,

the 1st respondent, the deceased died in a road accident, and

accordingly, dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved against the

said order, the claim petitioners preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and

learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance company.

VGKR,J MACMA No.1190 of 2012

10. The appellants pleaded that the Tribunal failed to appreciate

the documentary evidence and erred in holding that the appellants

failed to prove the factum of the accident.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled compensation as

prayed for? and

2) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

12. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim

application and gave a finding that the claim petitioners failed to

prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the 1st respondent who is the driver of the offending vehicle.

13. In order to prove their case, the claim petitioners relied on the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the 3rd petitioner. He is not an

eye witness to the accident. It was observed by the Tribunal in its

order that P.W.2 deposed one version in his chief-examination and

stated another version in cross-examination. P.W.2 stated in his

chief-examination that the offending vehicle came in a rash and

VGKR,J MACMA No.1190 of 2012

negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle,

as a result, the deceased fell down in an irrigation canal and the

driver of the auto ran away. In cross-examination, he stated that on

hearing big sound, he came out of the house and noticed the auto.

While he was raising cries, the auto driver left the scene. It seems

that P.W.2 supported the contention of the petitioners about the

driver of the auto at the accident spot and also the factum of the

accident. In view of the above observations, the Tribunal gave a

wrong finding that the claim petitioners failed to prove the factum of

the accident.

14. But, the learned Tribunal failed to consider the documentary

evidence i.e., Ex.A.1-attested copy of first information report and

Ex.A.5-attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.5 clearly goes to show

that the Investigating Officer investigated the crime and laid a

charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., the 1st

respondent herein. But, the Tribunal, without considering the first

information report and the charge sheet, came to wrong conclusion

that the claimants failed to prove the factum of the accident. The

Tribunal also failed to consider Ex.A.2-attested copy of inquest

VGKR,J MACMA No.1190 of 2012

report. It is settled law that the documentary evidence prevails over

the oral evidence and the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and

welfare legislation.

15. The evidence on record proves that the accident was occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle i.e., the 1st respondent. Moreover, the 1st respondent was

set ex parte. The 2nd respondent, who is owner of the auto, was

also set ex parte before the Tribunal.

16. The contention of the petitioners is that the deceased was a

private Medical Practitioner by profession and earning Rs.10,000/-

per month. But, the petitioners failed to prove that the deceased was

a private Medical Practitioner by profession and earning Rs.10,000/-

p.m.

17. The accident occurred on 10.10.2006. In those days, an

ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- p.m.

Therefore, the monthly earnings of the deceased is arrived at

Rs.2,500/-. The dependents on the deceased are three in number.

As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla

VGKR,J MACMA No.1190 of 2012

Varma case, 1/3rd income has to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased and 2/3rd income has to be taken as

contribution to his family. The deceased was aged about 47 years.

Therefore, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased

is "14". As stated above, the monthly earnings of the deceased is

Rs.2,500/-. So, the annual earnings of the deceased is Rs.30,000/-.

If 1/3rd income is deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased, Rs.20,000/- is available towards contribution to the family

of the deceased. So, the annual contribution to the family of the

deceased is Rs.2,80,000/- (Rs.20,000/- x 14). Rs.5,000/- is

awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased. In total, the

claim petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.2,85,000/-.

18. As per the evidence produced by the 3rd respondent/Insurance

company, Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy also goes to show that

the crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance

company and the policy is also on force. Copy of driving licence of

the 1st respondent was also got marked as Ex.X.2. Therefore, the

1st respondent is having a valid driving licence at the time of

accident and the crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd

VGKR,J MACMA No.1190 of 2012

respondent/Insurance company and the policy is also on force.

Therefore, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the

claim petitioners.

19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order and

decree dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at

Amalapuram, in M.V.O.P.No.185 of 2007 are liable to be set aside.

The appellants/claim petitioners are entitled compensation of

Rs.2,85,000/- (Rupees two lakh and eighty five thousand only) with

proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of deposit. Since the crime vehicle was insured

with the 3rd respondent/Insurance company and the policy is also on

force by the date of accident and the driver of the crime vehicle is

having valid driving licence at the time of accident, the 3rd

respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire

compensation amount with costs and interest, within two months

from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, petitioner Nos.2

and 3, daughters of the deceased, are entitled to withdraw

Rs.1,00,000/- each along with proportionate costs and interest and

VGKR,J MACMA No.1190 of 2012

the 4th petitioner, mother of the deceased, is entitled to withdraw

Rs.85,000/- with proportionate costs and interest. No order as to

costs in the appeal.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J 19th April, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.1190 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1190 of 2012

April, 2023 cbs