United India Insurance Company ... vs Payyavula Padmaja
2023 Latest Caselaw 2460 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

           M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2873 of 2009 and 421 of 2013


COMMON JUDGEMENT:


      M.A.C.M.A.No.2873 of 2009 is filed by the claim petitioners

and    M.A.C.M.A.No.421       of   2013     is   filed   by   the   2nd

respondent/Insurance company in M.V.O.P.No.409 of 2008 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge,

Guntur.

2. Since both the appeals arose from out of one decree and

order passed in M.V.O.P.No.409 of 2008, they are heard together

and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeals

will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

4. The claim petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.409 of 2008 filed the

claim application before the Tribunal for claiming compensation of

Rs.25,00,000/- consequent on the death of Payyavula Srikanth @

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

Srikanth Chowdary in a motor vehicle accident on 18.06.2004 at

about 8.30 p.m. near 1st lane of Rajendranagar, Guntur.

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

as follows:

On 18.06.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. when the deceased was

proceeding on his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing registration

No.AP 7A 8984 from his house at Brundavan Gardens near 1st lane,

Rajendra Nagar, the APSRTC hired bus of the 1st respondent

bearing registration No.AP 7X 1699 being driven by its driver at high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came in that way and

dashed against the motor cycle. Consequently, he received grievous

injuries and later succumbed to injuries on the same day at about

11.15 p.m. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent

is the insurer of the crime vehicle and the 3rd respondent took the

said vehicle on hire. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation.

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

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

respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying

the manner of accident and income of the deceased. The 3rd

respondent also filed a written statement denying the manner of

accident. It is pleaded that there is hire agreement between the 1st

respondent and the 3rd respondent, as per the terms of the said

agreement, the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay compensation, if

any.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were

framed for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Hire Bus with APSRTC bearing No.AP 7X 1699 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled to and against whom?

3) To what relief?

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

P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1

was got marked.

9. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal came to

conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and fixed the monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and accordingly, granted a

total compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- with proportionate costs and

interest at 7% p.a. against all the respondents. Aggrieved against

the said order, the claim petitioners filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2873 of

2009 for enhancement of compensation, while the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.421 of 2013

questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of

compensation?

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

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

12. POINT Nos.1 & 2: As seen from the material on record,

the 1st petitioner is mother, 2nd petitioner is father and 3rd petitioner is

wife of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 22 years at

the time of accident. He was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. by working

as a Physiotherapist. On 18.06.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. when the

deceased was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing

registration No.AP 7A 8984 from his house at Brundavan Gardens

near 1st lane, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur, the APSRTC hired bus of the

1st respondent bearing registration No.AP 7X 1699 being driven by

its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came in

that way and dashed against the motor cycle. Consequently, he

received grievous injuries and later succumbed to injuries on the

same day at about 11.15 p.m.

13. To prove the fact that the deceased died in a road accident,

the 1st petitioner, who is mother of the deceased, got herself

examined as P.W.1. The petitioners relief on Ex.A.1-certified copy of

first information report and Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet.

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. P.W.2 is an eye

witness to the accident. As per her evidence, on 18.06.2004 at

about 8.45 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding near 1st lane of

Rajendranagar, Guntur on his motor cycle on the left side of the

road, at the same time one hired RTC bus bearing registration

No.AP 7X 1699 being driven by its driver at high speed and in a

rash and negligent manner, came from Brundavan Gardens side

towards wrong direction and hit the motor cycle of the deceased.

She further deposed that as the deceased fell down from the motor

cycle, the bus dragged him to a distance of 10 to 15 meters,

resulting in grievous injuries and fractures to him and the passersby

admitted him Peoples Trauma Hospital. She is shown as an eye

witness in Ex.A.2-charge sheet filed by the police against the bus

driver/1st respondent.

14. The material on record clearly goes to show that due to rash

and negligent driving of the hired RTC bus by its driver alone the

accident was occurred. The learned Tribunal also came to the

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the

said finding of the learned Tribunal.

15. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount

of Rs.22,00,000/- to the claim petitioners by giving cogent reasons

in its order. As seen from the material on record, the petitioners

relied on Exs.A.1 to A.13. P.W.3, who was Clinical Therapist in

Kampegouda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangalore, deposed in

his evidence that now he is working as Assistant Professor in

Dayanandsagar Institutions and earlier, the deceased worked as

Assistant Clinical Therapist in his Clinic from May, 2003 to May,

2004 on monthly honorarium of Rs.6,000/- and during that period,

his performance was very impressive. The petitioners also got

marked Ex.A13-experience certificate of the deceased dated

06.10.2005 through P.W.3. P.W.3 further deposed that if the

deceased had migrated to USA, he would have earned 29 dollars by

virtue of his skills, and that the deceased was paid at the rate of

Rs.14,000/- per month from May, 2004. In cross-examination, he

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

admitted that the deceased completed his Physiotherapy degree

course in the month of March.

16. P.W.4, who is the Assistant Professor in Dayanandasagar

Institutes, deposed in his evidence that he was one of the partners

of Abhilash Hospital and Sara Rahabilitation Center, Bangalore

along with P.W.3 and the said hospital was closed in the year 2008.

He further deposed that the deceased worked as Assistant Physio

Therapist in that hospital from May, 2004 onwards on a monthly

salary of Rs.14,000/-. Through P.W.4, Ex.A.12-experience

certificate of the deceased dated 25.07.2004 was also marked. He

stated in his cross-examination that since the hospital was closed,

all the records were destroyed.

17. The learned Tribunal, on scrutinizing the evidence of P.Ws.3

and 4 and Exs.A.12 and A.13 and by giving cogent reasons, fixed

the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- p.m. and annual

income as Rs.1,80,000/-. The dependants on the deceased are

three in number. 1/3rd income is deducted towards personal

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

expenses of the deceased. Therefore, his annual contribution to the

family is Rs.1,20,000/-. The deceased was aged about 22 years.

The multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is "18".

So, the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.21,60,000/-

(Rs.1,20,000/- x 18). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and

transportation charges and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the

Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- to the petitioners.

18. The learned Tribunal in its order held that the 1st respondent is

the owner of the crime vehicle/bus, the 1st respondent insured the

bus with the 2nd respondent and the bus was taken on hire by the 3rd

respondent/APSRTC and the policy was also on force by the date of

the accident. The 3rd respondent/APSRTC failed to produce the

Hire Purchase Agreement and get it marked as an exhibit. It is not

disputed by both sides that the crime vehicle was insured with the

2nd respondent and the policy is also on force by the date of the

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

accident. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the liability on all the

respondents. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has not filed any appeal

against the order passed by the Tribunal.

19. In view of the above reasons, this Court feels that there is no

illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

20. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to

costs in the appeals.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

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

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.2873 of 2009 & 421 of 2013

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2873 of 2009 and 421 of 2013

26th April, 2023 cbs