The vs District Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 3880 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.442 of 2014


JUDGMENT:

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.34 of 2009 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-XIII Additional

District Judge, Narasaraopet 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 sections 140 and

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.12,00,000/- towards compensation on

account of death of deceased Nadendla Sita Rama Raju in a Motor

Vehicle Accident occurred on 06.10.2008.

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

On 06.10.2008 at about 11.30 a.m. while Nadendla Seetha

Rama Raju, hereinafter referred to as 'deceased', was proceeding 2 VGKRJ MACMA 442 of 2014

on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 7L 7862 near

Suvarnamukhi guest house, Nellore, at that time, Andhra Pradesh

State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) bus bearing

registration No.AP 26Y 6018, hereinafter referred to as 'offending

vehicle', driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, coming

behind and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased,

resulting which the deceased fell down, then one auto hit the motor

cycle of the deceased and the offending vehicle ran over the

deceased, consequently the deceased died on the spot itself and

the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- towards

compensation.

5. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counters separately denying the

claim of the claimants 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 claimants.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

                                        3                           VGKRJ
                                                        MACMA 442 of 2014




 i.    Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., bus bearing No.AP 26Y 6018?

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

iii. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf

of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A9 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined

and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 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.6,71,472/- to the claimants towards

compensation from the respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same,

the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the remaining

balance of compensation amount.

                                      4                            VGKRJ
                                                       MACMA 442 of 2014

9. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned

counsel for the respondents.

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:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 26Y

6018, the claimants relied on the evidence of PW2 and also relied

on Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A2

certified copy of charge sheet. On considering the entire evidence

of PW2 and on considering Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the Tribunal came to

conclusion that the accident in question was occurred due to rash

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

offending vehicle dashed against the deceased and ran over him, as

a result of which, he died at the spot itself. No appeal is filed by the

respondents against the said finding. No cross objections are filed 5 VGKRJ MACMA 442 of 2014

by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no

need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. The

material on record clearly supports that because of the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle only, the

accident occurred, in which, the deceased sustained severe injuries

and died at the spot itself.

12. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal granted an amount

of Rs.6,71,472/- towards total compensation. The contention of the

claimants is that the deceased was a bachelor and the deceased

was working as marketing officer in Andhra Cements Limited and

his net salary was Rs.11,495/-. Ex.A9 Fax copy of pay slip of the

deceased also supports the same. The claim petitioners are the

father and the mother of the deceased. As per Ex.A9, the net salary

of the deceased was Rs.11,495/-. The same is not at all disputed

by the respondents. Since the deceased was bachelor, half of the

amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased. After deducting half of the amount, the net income

available to the dependents on the deceased is Rs.5,747/- per

month i.e., Rs.68,964/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 6 VGKRJ MACMA 442 of 2014

25 years at the time of accident. The relevant multiplier applicable

to the age group of deceased is 18. Accordingly, an amount of

Rs.12,41,352/- (68,964 x 18) is awarded to the petitioners towards

loss of dependency.

13. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle i.e., APSRTC

hired bus is owned by the first respondent and insured with the

second respondent Insurance Company and the policy is in force

and by virtue of Ex.B1 agreement in between respondents 1 and 3,

APSRTC/3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The

Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim against the third respondent and

directed the insurer/second respondent to indemnify the first

respondent and directed the second respondent Insurance

Company to pay the compensation of Rs.6,71,472/-. No appeal or

no cross objections are filed by the second respondent Insurance

Company against the said finding.

14. As stated supra, the claimants are entitled an amount of

Rs.12,41,352/- towards loss of dependency. Since the claimants

claimed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- only towards compensation,

their claim is restricted to Rs.12,00,000/-.

                                     7                            VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 442 of 2014

15. In the result, this appeal is allowed, modifying the order dated

19.11.2011 passed in MVOP No.34/2009 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XIII Additional District Judge,

Narasaraopet, consequently the claim amount is enhanced from

Rs.6,71,472/- to Rs.12,00,000/-. The appellants/ claimants are

entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.5,28,528/- with interest

@7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The

respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation

amount of Rs.5,28,528/- with interest as ordered above, before the

Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. After

depositing the enhanced compensation amount, the claimants 1 and

2 are entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along

with accrued interest thereon equally (i.e., Rs.2,64,264/- each).

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: 14.08.2023.

sj
                           8                         VGKRJ
                                         MACMA 442 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.442 of 2014

14.08.2023

sj