Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs District Judge on 8 August, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3947 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.140 of 2006
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-II Additional
District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru and the respondents
are the respondents in the said case.
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 claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicles
Rules 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award
an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation on account of
death of deceased Kanchumarthi Bujjagayya in a Motor Vehicle
Accident occurred on 12.08.2005.
4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
On 12.08.2005 at about 8.25 a.m. Kanchumarthi Bujjagayya
(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') started from his village on his
2 VGKRJ
MACMA 3947 of 2012
TVS Star Motor Cycle to attend his duty at Polavaram project works
and when he reached near Ramakrishna Hospital, Dharmavaram
village, the driver of tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP37M 1315 and
AP 37M 1316, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', drove
the same in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic
rules and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased from
behind, due to that the deceased fell on the road and the tractor ran
over him, resulting which the deceased succumbed to injuries while
undergoing treatment and the petitioners claimed an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation.
5. The first and second respondents remained exparte. The third
respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and
contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and
the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the
claimants.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i. Whether the deceased kanchumarthi Bojjagayya
died in a motor vehicle accident on 12.08.2005 due
3 VGKRJ
MACMA 3947 of 2012
to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and
Trailer bearing Nos.AP 37M 1315 and AP 37M
1316 driven by its driver/1st respondent?
ii. What is the age and income of the deceased?
iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
which of the respondents?
iv. To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf
of the petitioners, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9
were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 to RW3 were
examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X6 were marked.
8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the
evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, 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.4,30,000/- to the claimants towards
compensation from the respondents 2 and 3.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal
claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.
4 VGKRJ
MACMA 3947 of 2012
10. Now, the points for consideration are:
1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any
interference?
2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as prayed for?
11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-
It was pleaded by the claimants that the accident in question
was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 37M 1315 and AP 37M 1316. In
order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1 to
PW3. PW1 is the wife of the deceased and she is not an eye
witness to the accident. PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses to the
accident. As per their evidence, the accident in question was
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle. First Information Report was registered against
the driver of the tractor and trailer and after completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the
driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal on appreciation of
entire evidence on record came to conclusion that the accident in
5 VGKRJ
MACMA 3947 of 2012
question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle. I do not find any legal flaw or
infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. No appeal is filed
by the respondents against the said finding given by the Tribunal.
12. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal granted an amount
of Rs.4,30,000/- towards total compensation. Though the claimants
pleaded that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.13,000/-
and he was a private Civil Engineer, no evidence is adduced by the
claimants. The claimants relied on Ex.A9 letter of appointment
dated 07.06.2005 and also examined the accountant of said private
organization as PW4. Letter of appointment is given by private firm.
On the other hand, PW4 deposed in his evidence in cross
examination that there is no authority assigned to him by the firm to
depose on behalf of firm. Further, there is no material such as pay
slips and attendant registers or any other material placed before the
Tribunal showing engagement of deceased as an employee of the
said firm. On the other hand, the petitioners claimed that the
deceased was a Civil Diploma Holder, but absolutely no material
was placed before the Tribunal. On considering the age and ability
6 VGKRJ
MACMA 3947 of 2012
to earn the age group of the deceased, the Tribunal arrived that the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. The age of the
deceased was 33 years and the accident in question was occurred
in the year 2005. On considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the considered view that the monthly income of the
deceased has to be enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,500/- i.e.,
Rs.42,000/- per annum. The dependents on the deceased are five
in number. As per the decision of Sarla Verma's case, 1/4th income
has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If
1/4th income is deducted, the net income available to the
dependents on the deceased is Rs.31,500/- (42,000 - 10,500) per
annum. Since the deceased was aged about 33 years, the relevant
multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is 16.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,04,000/- (31,500 x 16) is awarded to
the claimants towards loss of dependency. As per the judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the maximum amount
to be awarded under the conventional heads is Rs.70,000/-.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of
consortium to the first petitioner. An amount of Rs.30,000/- is
awarded towards loss of estate and loss of love and affection and
7 VGKRJ
MACMA 3947 of 2012
an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of
the deceased. In total, the appellants/ claimants are entitled an
amount of Rs.5,74,000/- towards total compensation. Accordingly,
the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- towards
enhanced compensation.
13. Since the offending vehicle is insured with third respondent
Insurance company under valid policy and there are no violations in
Ex.B1 policy and the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid
driving licence by the date of accident, the Tribunal fixed the liability
against the respondents 2 and 3 and directed the respondent No.3
Insurance Company to indemnify the compensation. No appeal is
filed by the respondents against the said finding. Since there are no
violations in the policy, third respondent Insurance Company has to
indemnify the second respondent / owner of the offending vehicle.
14. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order
dated 20.10.2010 passed in MVOP No.140/2006 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge,
West Godavari District, Eluru, consequently the claim amount is
enhanced from Rs.4,30,000/- to Rs.5,74,000/-. The appellants/
8 VGKRJ
MACMA 3947 of 2012
claimants are entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,44,000/-
with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of
realization. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount of Rs.1,44,000/- with interest as
ordered above, before the Tribunal within two months from the date
of this judgment. All the claimants are entitled to withdraw the
enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest
thereon equally (Rs.28,800/- each). The petitioners 2 and 3 are
entitled to withdraw their share of enhanced compensation amount
after attaining majority. Until they attain majority, their share of
enhanced compensation amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in
any Nationalized Bank. After depositing the enhanced
compensation amount, the claimants 1, 4 and 5 are entitled to
withdraw their share of enhanced compensation amount along with
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: .08.2023.
sj
9 VGKRJ
MACMA 3947 of 2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3947 of 2012
.08.2023
sj
