Yelamanchili Atchiyamma Anmd ... vs Madasu Venkata Rao And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 983 AP

                                 1            MACMA.NO.322 of 2012




THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.322 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The appellants are claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1098 of

2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam, and the

respondents are the respondents in the said case.

2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimants are filed a Claim Petition under section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act for seeking compensation in an

accident Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of Yelamanchili

Mahalakshmi, in a Motor Vehicle Accident, that occurred on

28.02.2009.

4. The claimant's case is that on 28.02.2009 at about

10:00 AM., the deceased was proceeding from his house 2 MACMA.NO.322 of 2012

towards hotel for having tea on foot and in the meanwhile

the bus belonging to respondents 2 and 3 in a rash and

negligent manner from Anakapalli towards Choadavaram

and hit the deceased from his behind as a result, he

sustained grievous injuries on his head and left leg and

immediately he was removed to NTR Area Hospital and died

while undergoing treatment on the same day. The

Chodavaram Police also registered a case in Cr.No.21/09

under section 304-A of IPC and charge sheeted the driver of

the bus involved in the accident.

5. The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed their counter denying

the material allegations in the petition and putting the

petitioners to strict proof of the same and further according

to them it is only on account of negligence on the part of the

deceased who dashed the rear left side of the bus the accident

occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the driver

of the bus.

3 MACMA.NO.322 of 2012

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

following issues:

1) Whether the deceased Vis., Yelamanchili

Mahalakshmi, Son of late Somulu, died in the motor

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving

of the vehicle bearing No. AP 10 Z 5168 (APSRTC BUS)

driven by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to

compensation? if so, to what amount and from which of

the respondents?

3) To what relief?

On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 are

examined and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked.

4 MACMA.NO.322 of 2012

7. Now, the point for consideration is:

1) Whether the order passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge,

Visakhapatnam. needs any interference?

POINT NO.1

8. On considering the material on record Ex.A1 Attested

copy of FIR and Ex.A4 Attested copy of Charge sheet, the

learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident is

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

APSRTC bus i.e., 1st respondent. The respondents did not

challenge the said finding and no appeal is filed by the

respondents against the said finding given by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal came to conclusion that the 2nd petitioner is a

major son aged about 38 years and he is not entitled

compensation, but the 2nd petitioner is entitled to received

Rs.12,500/- towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate 5 MACMA.NO.322 of 2012

and funeral expenses. The Tribunal came to conclusion that

the petitioners failed to prove the relationship with the

deceased, but the Tribunal granted quantum of Rs.10,000/-

towards loss of love and affection and towards loss of estate

for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- has awarded

towards funeral expenses in total the Tribunal granted

Rs.25,000/- to the both the petitioners towards

compensation.

It is not a dispute that the 1st Petitioner is unmarried

daughter of the deceased. 1st petitioner is examined is

examined as PW1. In cross-examination nothing was elicited

from PW1 discredit the testimony of PW1, it was simply

suggested to PW1 in cross-examination that she is married

and having children, the said suggestion is denied by PW1.

9. This Court perused pleadings taken by the respondent

APSRTC there is no pleading in the written statement that

the 1st petitioner is married and there is no pleading in the 6 MACMA.NO.322 of 2012

written statement of APSRTC that the relationship of 1st

petitioner and 2nd petitioner with the deceased is disputed,

the finding given by the Tribunal in its order that the

petitioners failed to prove the relationship is not at all correct

therefore, the said finding is liable to be set-aside. At one

stage the Tribunal came to conclusion that the petitioners

are entitled Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection

and also Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and also entitled

Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, but the Tribunal,

unfortunately came to conclusion that the petitioners failed

to prove the relationship with the deceased. As per PM report

the deceased was aged about 55 years. therefore, a person

who is aged about 55 years can easily earn Rs.1,000/- per

month in those days i.e., on 28.02.2009, therefore the annual

income of the deceased was taken up as Rs.12,000/- here

the dependents of the deceased are two only, therefore, 1/3

income have to be deducted from out of Rs.12,000/- towards

personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, 4,000/- has 7 MACMA.NO.322 of 2012

to be deducted from Rs.12,000/- the income available to the

dependents on the deceased is Rs.8,000/- P.A., as per the

decision of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transportation

Corporation reported in 2009 ACC 708 SC, the multiplier

applicable to the aged group of the deceased is "11" (8000/-

x11=Rs.88,000/-) is awarded towards loss of dependency to

the petitioners. This court has clearly stated above

Rs.10,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love

and affection and also Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss

of estate Rs.5,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses of the

deceased. therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said

finding given by the Tribunal, in total the claimants are

entitled Rs.1,13,000/- (25,000+88,000=1,13,000/-).

10. The 1st petitioner who is unmarried daughter is the

dependent on the deceased, and 2nd petitioner is son of

deceased, both are entitled to receive enhanced

compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- equally. 1st petitioner is 8 MACMA.NO.322 of 2012

entitled Rs.56,500/- and 2nd petitioner is entitled

Rs.56,500/- with interest and costs.

11. The award dated 27.05.2011 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1098 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge

Visakhapatnam is modified, accordingly.

12. In the result the appeal is allowed in part by the

modifying the order dated 27.05.2011 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1098 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge

Visakhapatnam.

13. It is held that the 1st appellant is entitled total

compensation of Rs. Rs.56,500/- with subsequent interest of

6% P.A. on the enhanced compensation from the date of

petition till the date of payment and 2nd petitioner is entitled

total compensation of Rs. Rs.56,500/- with subsequent

interest of 6% P.A. on the enhanced compensation from the 9 MACMA.NO.322 of 2012

date of petition till the date of payment towards his share, the

respondents are directed to deposit balance of amount within

one (1) month from the date of Judgment, on such deposit

the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same along with

interest accrued there on.

14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent

stated above.

15. As sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

this appeal shall stand closed.

_______________________________________

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Dated:21.02.2023.

KNN