Choparapu Parvathi, vs Shaik Khadir Basha
2023 Latest Caselaw 2083 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No. 2411 of 2014
JUDGEMENT:

The appellants are claim petitioners and the respondents are

respondents in M.V.O.P.No.352 of 2011 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

The appellants filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the

order of the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, 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.15,00,000/- for the loss of life of Chopparapu Subba Rao in a

motor vehicle accident which took place on 17.08.2010 near

Besthavaripeta on Giddalur-Ongole high way.

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

as follows:

VGKR,J MACMA No.2411 of 2014

On 17.08.2010 the deceased purchased cotton at

Porumamilla Mandal, engaged a lorry bearing registration No.AP

16TU 6188 belongs to the 1st respondent, loaded the cotton in the

lorry, and in the same lorry, he proceeded to Guntur to sell the same.

But, when the lorry reaching at a turning point near Besthavaripeta

on Giddalur-Ongole high way, the driver of the lorry drove the same

in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over

it, due to which, the lorry went into the fields beyond the road and

turned turtle. As a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal

injuries and died on the spot itself. The 1st respondent is owner and

the 2nd respondent is the 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 written statement by denying

the manner of the accident. It is pleaded that the petitioners have to

prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased, and that the

driver of the crime vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving

licence by the time of the accident.

VGKR,J MACMA No.2411 of 2014

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

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16U 6188 resulting the death of the deceased by name Chopparapu Subba Rao, on 17.08.2010?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

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

P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. On

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

documents were marked.

8. At the culmination of enquiry, after considering the evidence

on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal partly

allowed the claim application and granted a sum of Rs.10,10,000/-

towards compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the

impugned award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal

for enhancement of compensation.

VGKR,J MACMA No.2411 of 2014

9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and

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

10. The main two grounds, on which the present appeal is

preferred by the appellants, are that the Tribunal erred in restricting

the claim of the appellants to Rs.10,10,000/- instead of

Rs.15,00,000/- as claimed by the appellants and that the Tribunal

failed to consider to add 50% future prospects to the monthly

income of the deceased.

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: As can be seen from the impugned award,

the Tribunal held that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same

in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, due to that,

the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot itself.

The Tribunal further held that the driver of the crime vehicle is

VGKR,J MACMA No.2411 of 2014

having a valid driving licence and the crime vehicle was insured with

the 2nd respondent/Insurance company by the date of the accident

and the policy is on force. On considering the material on record,

the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,10,000/- towards

compensation to the petitioners. No appeal is filed against the said

finding. Therefore, this Court does not see any legal flaw or infirmity

in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal.

13. The Tribunal has not granted any future prospects in addition

to the annual income of the deceased. The Tribunal arrived annual

income of the deceased at Rs.84,000/-. As per the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 1 , if deceased was self employed or a

person on a fixed salary, the claimants are entitled the benefit of

additional 40% of the income of the deceased towards future

prospects. Here, the deceased was aged about 38 years by the

date of the accident. Therefore, 40% of the income is added to

Rs.84,000/- (fixed by the Tribunal), which comes to Rs.1,17,600/-

(Rs.84,000/- + Rs.33,600/-). In the present case, the dependents on

2017 (16) SCC 680

VGKR,J MACMA No.2411 of 2014

the deceased are four in number. So, as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Varma case, 1/4th of the

income has to be deducted from out of Rs.1,17,600/- towards

personal expenses of the deceased and the net income available to

the dependents on the deceased is Rs.88,200/- (Rs.1,17,600/-

minus Rs.29,400/-). As per the judgment in Sarla Varma case, the

multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is "15".

Therefore, the loss of dependency to the petitioners comes to

Rs.13,23,000/- (Rs.88,200/- x 15). The learned Tribunal also

awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium,

Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of

love, affection and estate. Thus, in all, the claim petitioners are

entitled compensation of Rs.13,88,000/-.

14. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance

company fairly represented before the Court that there are no

violations in the policy and the driving licence of the driver of the

crime vehicle is on force and the policy is also on force. Therefore,

both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the claim

petitioners.

VGKR,J MACMA No.2411 of 2014

15. In view of the above reasons, the appeal is partly allowed by

enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,10,000/- to Rs.13,88,000/-

and the claim petitioners are entitled enhanced compensation of

Rs.3,78,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the

date of payment by both the respondents. Both the respondents are

directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,78,000/-

with interest at 6% p.a. before the Tribunal within two months from

the date of the judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation of

Rs.3,78,000/-, the 1st petitioner is entitled Rs.1,68,000/- with

proportionate costs and interest and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are

entitled Rs.70,000/- each with proportionate costs and interest. No

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

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

VGKR,J MACMA No.2411 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2411 of 2014

19th April, 2023 cbs