The National Insurance Company ... vs T.Chinnammayi 3 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 594 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 594 AP
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The National Insurance Company ... vs T.Chinnammayi 3 Ors on 3 February, 2023

Bench: T Mallikarjuna Rao

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                        M.A.C.M.A. No.587 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

1. The National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its

Divisional Manager, Tirupati, who is the second respondent in

M.V.O.P.No.420 of 2005, has preferred this appeal questioning the

award dt.21.09.2007, in the said M.V.O.P passed by the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,

Tirupati, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred

to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- on account of the death of C.Nagaiah (hereinafter

referred to as 'the deceased')

4. The claimant's case is that on 18.12.2004, while the deceased and

one Sankaraiah were going back to Puttur after attending coolie

work at Siddartha Engineering College on foot, the rider of the Hero

Honda motorcycle bearing No.TN-07-Y-6621 (hereinafter referred to

MACMA_587_2012

as 'the offending vehicle') proceeded rashly and negligently. It dashed

the deceased from behind near Siddartha Engineering College, and

he sustained bleeding injuries to the head and became unconscious.

He was taken to Community Health Center, Puttur and succumbed

to injuries on 27.12.2004 at about 09.45 PM while undergoing

treatment.

5. The first respondent remained exparte

6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the petitioners' case and

contended that the accident arose due to negligent and sudden road

crossing by the deceased without taking proper care and caution.

The rider of the motorcycle was not negligent. The vehicle was not

insured by the 2nd respondent. The rider of the motorcycle was not

holding a valid driving licence. The compensation claimed is

excessive.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues.

During the trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were got

examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents,

no oral evidence was let in, but Ex.B.1 copy of policy got marked.

8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal

held that the accident in question arose due to the negligence of the

MACMA_587_2012

offending motorcycle's rider and on account of which the deceased

died and granted compensation of Rs.4,14,800/- with interest at 7.5

% p.a., against the Respondents, making them jointly and severally

liable to pay the compensation.

9. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties.

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant /second respondent contends

that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive; the

Tribunal erred in fixing an excessive multiplication factor of 16,

whereas the factor of 13 was used, and multiplication of factor

should have been used for 38 years older person like in the present

case.

11. Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants supported the

Tribunal's findings and observations.

12. Now the points for consideration are, I. Whether the multiplier used by the Tribunal is incorrect?

II. Whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

POINT Nos.I and II:

13. The offending vehicle is insured by the second respondent, and the

insurance policy in force at the time of the accident is not in dispute.

MACMA_587_2012

The death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident

is also not disputed. It is also evident by Ex.A.1-true copy of F.I.R.,

Ex.A.3- a copy of PM report and Ex.A.2- a copy of charge sheet and

Ex.A4-Inquest report. The relationship of claimants with the

deceased is not in dispute. The first claimant is the wife, and the 2nd

and 3rd claimants are the children of the deceased.

14. To prove the accident, the claimants examined PW.1, the deceased's

wife, i.e., 1st claimant and PW.2, the third claimant. Claimants got

examined by PW.3-Sri A.Sankaraiah as an eye witness. The Tribunal

accepted the evidence of PW.3 coupled with Ex.A1-F.I.R and found

that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the

offending vehicle. The said finding of the Tribunal is not questioned

by the appellant, though it filed the appeal challenging the quantum

of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Since the said finding is

not assailed, it is not required to refer to the evidence relating to the

manner of the accident.

15. The Tribunal, considering the Ex.A3-Postmortem report and Ex.A4-

Certified copy of the Inquest report, assessed the age of the deceased

as 35 years in the absence of authenticated proof pertaining to the

age of the deceased. The Tribunal is justified in considering Ex.A3

MACMA_587_2012

and Ex.A4 documents in fixing the age of the deceased at the time of

the accident.

16. This Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation, in which the Apex Court provided

the table of the multiplier to be considered for the claims made un-

der Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the multiplier for

the persons aged between 31 and 35 is provided as '16'. As the age

of the deceased was 35 years at the time of the accident, the Tribu-

nal has correctly applied the multiplier 16.

17. In the claimants' case, the deceased earned Rs.150/- per day as a

Mason. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the recitals of

Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 and held that the occupation of the deceased was a

coolie, not a Mason. The Tribunal assessed the annual earnings of

the deceased by considering the daily wages per the proceedings is-