The Branch Manager, vs Jetti Kumara Swamy
2023 Latest Caselaw 2249 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1027 of 2012


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.417 of

2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV

Additional District Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are the

petitioners and other respondents in the said case.

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

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition against the respondents

by praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

towards compensation on account of death of deceased Jetti

Srinivasulu in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 01.05.2003.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 01.05.2003 at about 5.30 p.m. while the deceased Jetti

Srinivasulu was returning to his house in an auto bearing No.AP 04

U 5245 and when the auto reached near Bhumayapalli bridge on

Kadapa-Kurnool main road, the driver of the said auto drove the VGKRJ MACMA 1027 of 2012 Page 2 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023

same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost

control over the vehicle, resulting which the auto turned turtle, as a

result, the deceased Srinivasulu sustained injuries, later succumbed

to injuries and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

towards compensation for the death of the deceased Srinivasulu in

a Motor Vehicle Accident.

5. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counters by denying the claim

application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any

compensation and the respondents 1 to 3 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 deceased J.Srinivasulu died in a motor vehicle accident on 01.05.2003 due to rash or negligent driving of R-1's auto bearing No.AP 04 U 5245 by its driver?

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

iii. To what relief?

 VGKRJ                                            MACMA 1027 of 2012
Page 3 of 9                                      Dt: 24.04.2023

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

and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1

was examined and 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.1,64,100/- to the claimants 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?

11.     POINT:-

The case of the petitioner is that on 01.05.2003 at about 5.30

p.m. while the deceased Jetti Srinivasulu was returning to his house

in an auto bearing No.AP 04 U 5245 and when the auto reached

near Bhumayapalli bridge on Kadapa-Kurnool main road, the driver VGKRJ MACMA 1027 of 2012 Page 4 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023

of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with

high speed and lost control over the vehicle, resulting which the auto

turned turtle, as a result, the deceased Srinivasulu sustained injuries,

later succumbed to injuries.

12. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner

himself got examined as PW1. PW1 is not an eye-witness. The

claim petitioners got examined the eye-witness as PW2. The

evidence of PW2 clearly shows that because of the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle only, the accident was

occurred and the petitioners also relied on Ex.A1 certified copy of

First Information Report and Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet.

The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 clearly proves

about the rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP 04 U

5245 and due to his rashness and negligence only, the accident was

occurred and the deceased, who was travelling in the auto,

sustained severe injuries, later succumbed to injuries. Therefore, in

view of the above reasons, because of the rash and negligent

driving of driver of auto only, the accident was occurred. The

Tribunal also gave the same finding. Therefore, there is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the learned Tribunal.

 VGKRJ                                          MACMA 1027 of 2012
Page 5 of 9                                    Dt: 24.04.2023

13. The petitioners in this case are claiming compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of deceased J.Srinivasulu in a road

accident. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased

was a coolie and earning an amount of Rs.2,400/- per month by the

date of his death. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons

fixed the same amount of Rs.2,400/- per month towards the monthly

income of deceased. The learned Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the said

amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. After

deducting 1/3 amount, Rs.1,600/- per month is available to the

dependents of the deceased, it come to Rs.19,200/- per annum and

the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is '8' and

it comes to Rs.1,53,600/- (Rs.19,200 x 8 = Rs.1,53,600/-).

Accordingly, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of

Rs.1,53,600/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency. In

addition to that, the learned Tribunal also granted an amount of

Rs.4,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment, Rs.2,000/-

towards love and affection, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses

and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, the learned

Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,64,100/- towards total

compensation and the learned Tribunal rightly granted the said VGKRJ MACMA 1027 of 2012 Page 6 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023

amount. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

14. As seen from the material on record, it shows that about

more than 10 persons were travelling in the offending vehicle at the

time of accident and the seating capacity in the auto is three

passengers plus driver, in total four. It is the contention of the

learned counsel for Insurance Company that the first respondent

transferred the vehicle to third respondent on 07.12.2002, the same

was pleaded in the written statement. The date of accident was

01.05.2003. As per the own admissions of the Insurance Company,

the Registration Certificate also transferred in favour of respondent

No.3 by respondent No.1. As per the material available on record,

the crime vehicle/auto was insured with Insurance Company under

Ex.B1 copy of policy and the driver of the auto also possessed valid

driving licence to drive the auto. Therefore, since the driver of auto

having valid and effective driving licence by the date of accident and

the crime vehicle is insured with 2nd respondent Insurance Company

and the policy is also on force and in view of the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India (three Judge Bench) of Singh ram Vs., VGKRJ MACMA 1027 of 2012 Page 7 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023

Nirmala and others1, the Insurance Company shall pay the claim at

first instance and later recover the same from the owner of the crime

vehicle.

15. In the judgment of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh

Kumar Singh and others2 it was held that the direction to United

India Insurance Company Limited being the insurer of the offending

vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to

negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United

India Insurance Company Limited/ respondent No.3) to first pay the

awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the

paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle without

filing any independent suit by filing an Execution Petition against the

owner of the crime vehicle.

16. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/ Insurance company is

directed to pay the total claim of Rs.1,64,100/- to the claimants at

first instance, later recover the same from respondent No.3 by filing

Execution Petition without filing independent suit, since third

2018 Law Suit (SC) 191,

(2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796 VGKRJ MACMA 1027 of 2012 Page 8 of 9 Dt: 24.04.2023

respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of

accident.

17. In the result, this appeal is disposed of, by modifying the order

dated 31.05.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.417 of 2003 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge,

Kadapa. It is held that the claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.1,64,100/- with interest @7.5% p.a., from the

date of petition, till the date of payment. The 2nd respondent/

Insurance Company is directed to pay the claim amount, within one

month from the date of this judgment, to the claimants at first

instance and later recover the same from respondent No.3 by filing

an Execution Petition and without filing any independent suit. On

such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same along

with costs and accrued interest thereon. 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: 24.04.2023.

Sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 1027 of 2012
Page 9 of 9                              Dt: 24.04.2023






          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1027 of 2012



                          24.04.2023

sj