Thati Kavitha Another vs Kothapalli Srinivasulu Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2081 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No. 1037 of 2013

JUDGEMENT:

The appellants are claim petitioners and the respondents are

respondents in M.V.O.P.No.320 of 2011 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge at

Markapur. 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 Sections 163-A

and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- for the loss of life of Thati Ravi Kumar in a motor

vehicle accident which took place on 14.01.2011 in between Pedda

Nallavagu and Chinna Nallavagu at Cumbum-Markapur road.

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

as follows:

VGKR,J MACMA No.1037 of 2013

On 14.01.2011 the maternal uncle of the deceased and his

wife went to Cumbum in their bullock cart for getting stone chips for

sluice work. After loading the stone chips, they returned from

Cumbum and on their way, at about 7.30 p.m. the deceased

followed them on his cycle. When they reached the place in

between Pedda Nallavagu and Chinna Nallavagu at Cumbum-

Markapur road, a Bolerio vehicle bearing registration No.AP 27V

8759 came from their behind and dashed to the cycle of the

deceased and also the bullock cart. As a result of which, the

deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries and later he

succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The 1st

respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the

offending vehicle and hence, both the respondents are jointly and

severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. The 1st respondent remained set ex parte. The 2nd

respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the

manner of the accident and contending that the petitioners are not

the dependants on the deceased as he is a student and not an

earning member.

VGKR,J MACMA No.1037 of 2013

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

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the deceased died in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP 27V 5787 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed. If so, 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.5. On

behalf of the 2nd respondent, no witnesses were examined, but

Ex.B.1 was marked.

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

to a conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and granted an

amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved against the said order, the

claim petitioners preferred the present appeal for enhancement of

compensation.

VGKR,J MACMA No.1037 of 2013

9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and

learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance company.

10. The appellants pleaded that the Tribunal erred in awarding

compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act instead

of awarding compensation under Section 163-A of the Act.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of

compensation as prayed for? and

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

12. POINT Nos.1 & 2: In order to prove the death of the deceased

boy aged about 14 years, who is the younger brother of the

petitioners, in a motor vehicle accident, the petitioners relied on

Exs.A.1 to A.5. P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. In order

to prove the factum of accident, the maternal uncle of the 1 st

petitioner was examined as P.W.2. Here, the death of the deceased

in a motor vehicle accident is not in dispute by the respondents. The

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 supported by Ex.A.1-attested copy of first

VGKR,J MACMA No.1037 of 2013

information report and Ex.A.5-attested copy of charge sheet coupled

with other documentary evidence clearly proves that because of

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle only, the

accident was occurred, as a result, the deceased sustained injuries

and later succumbed to injuries.

13. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- before

the Tribunal, but the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.50,000/-

only to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in

a motor vehicle accident and he is the younger brother of the

petitioners and his parents are no more. Therefore, as rightly held

by the Tribunal, the claim petitioners are not the dependants on the

deceased. However, by applying the multiplier method under II

Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal granted an amount

of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners as compensation, since the

respondents have not disputed the relationship of the petitioners

with the deceased. It was held by the Tribunal that the petitioners

are only the legal representatives of the deceased and hence, they

are entitled compensation only towards loss of estate of the

deceased under no fault liability in terms of Section 140 of the Motor

VGKR,J MACMA No.1037 of 2013

Vehicles Act. The Tribunal gave cogent reasons that the claim

petitioners are not the dependants on the deceased and they are

only the legal representatives, and awarded an amount of

Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. In addition to awarding of

Rs.50,000/- by the Tribunal, this Court feels that it is appropriate to

award a further sum of Rs.50,000/- to the claim petitioners towards

loss of love and affection, because the deceased, who is younger

brother of the claim petitioners, died at the age of 14 years. Thus, in

total, the claim petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

towards compensation.

14. Though the respondents did not adduce any evidence, but

they relied on Ex.B.1-copy of Insurance policy. The material on

record goes to show that the crime vehicle was insured with the 2 nd

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

the driver of the crime vehicle is also having valid and effective

driving licence. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay

the entire compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of deposit.

VGKR,J MACMA No.1037 of 2013

15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by directing the

respondents to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/-

with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

deposit before the Tribunal within two (2) months from the date of

the judgment. On such deposit, both the petitioners are permitted to

withdraw the same along with accrued interest. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

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

VGKR,J MACMA No.1037 of 2013

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1037 of 2013

19th April, 2023 cbs