Paila Alias Pyal Jagannadham 3 ... vs Sk. Mahaboob Basha Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2458 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                       M.A.C.M.A.No. 1211 of 2012

JUDGEMENT:

The appellants are claim petitioners and the respondents are

respondents in M.V.O.P.No.822 of 2004 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore. 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.3,00,000/- for the death of Ranga Rao in a motor vehicle

accident which took place on 09.10.2004 at about 6.30 p.m. near

Tobacco factory, NCC colony on Podalakur road.

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

as follows:

VGKR,J MACMA No.1211 of 2012

On 09.10.2004 the deceased along with others was travelling

in a Jeep bearing registration No.AEP 5801 and when the Jeep

reached tobacco Factory, NCC Colony on Podalakur road, a she

buffalo came and as the driver of the Jeep applied brakes suddenly,

the deceased fell down and sustained head injury and later, he

succumbed to injuries on 10.10.2004 while undergoing treatment.

The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the

insurer. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable

to pay compensation.

5. Both the respondents filed counters separately by denying the

manner of the accident.

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 out of the use of the motor vehicle of respondent no.1?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

VGKR,J MACMA No.1211 of 2012

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

P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On

behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was

marked.

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

to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and awarded

a total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 7.5 p.a. from

the date of petition till the date of payment against both the

respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the claim petitioners

preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

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 failed to consider that

the deceased used to earn Rs.200/- per day.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

VGKR,J MACMA No.1211 of 2012

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 rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claim petitioners

examined the 1st petitioner as P.W.1. P.W.1 is not an eye witness to

the accident. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. On

considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.1-attested copy of first

information report and Ex.A.2-attested copy of charge sheet, the

learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident was occurred

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

vehicle. Admittedly, no appeal is filed by the respondents against

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

said finding given by the Tribunal.

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

evidence of P.W.1 who is the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner is

father, 2nd petitioner is mother and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are sons

VGKR,J MACMA No.1211 of 2012

of the deceased. The learned Tribunal held in its order that

petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are majors and therefore, they are not

dependents on the deceased and they are not entitled for any

compensation, and awarded compensation to petitioner Nos.1 and 2

who are the parents of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the

deceased was unmarried. As per the case of the petitioners, the

deceased was a labourer and earning Rs.200/- per day. On

considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal treated the

deceased as a labourer and accordingly, fixed the monthly income

of the deceased as Rs.1,200/-. The age of the deceased is 22

years by the date of the accident and it is not in dispute by both

sides. The accident occurred in the year 2004. In those days, an

ordinary coolie, who is aged about 22 years, can easily earn

Rs.1,600/- to Rs.2,000/- p.m. Therefore, the monthly income of the

deceased is taken up by this Court as Rs.1,600/-. As stated above,

the deceased was a bachelor. So, his contribution to the family is

fixed at Rs.800/- per month and the annual contribution comes to

Rs.9,600/-. As per Sarla Varma case, the multiplier applicable to

VGKR,J MACMA No.1211 of 2012

the age group of the deceased is "18" and the contribution of the

deceased to the family is arrived at Rs.1,72,800/- (Rs.9,600/ x 18).

The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards non-

pecuniary damages. There is no need to interfere with the said

finding given by the Tribunal with regard to non-pecuniary damages

awarded to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Thus, in all, the petitioners are

entitled compensation of Rs.1,87,800/-.

14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the

compensation from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.1,87,800/- and the claim

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled enhanced compensation of

Rs.62,800/- with interest at 7.5% 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.62,800/- with

interest at 7.5% p.a. before the Tribunal within two months from the

date of the judgment. On such deposit, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are

entitled to withdraw Rs.31,400/- each with proportionate costs and

interest. No order as to costs.

VGKR,J MACMA No.1211 of 2012

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J th 26 April, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.1211 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1211 of 2012

26th April, 2023 cbs