The vs Rs.30
2023 Latest Caselaw 3275 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1879 of 2015


JUDGMENT:

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.118 of 2007

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- III Additional

District Judge, Guntur 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 against the respondents praying

the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- towards

compensation on account of death of deceased Shaik Bude Saheb

in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 13.09.2006.

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

The deceased, at the time of his death, was working as Sub

Post Master at 77 Tallur village and drawing a monthly salary of

Rs.11,000/- and the deceased was hale and healthy and he used to 2 VGKRJ MACMA 1879 of 2015

spend his earnings to the welfare of his family consisting of

petitioners. The deceased along with his colleagues went to Delhi

to attend a National Conference of their Union as delegates. On

12.09.2006, the deceased along with his colleagues planned to see

Tajmahal at Agra and engaged a Maruthi van bearing No.DL9CB

8761 and when they reached near Chata village on 13.09.2006 at

about 2.00 a.m., the driver of the Maruthi van slowed the vehicle

without giving any signal, meanwhile UPRTC bus bearing

No.UP81N 9895 came in opposite direction and dashed the Maruthi

van, as a result, the deceased received multiple injuries, later

succumbed to injuries and the petitioners claimed an amount of

Rs.13,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The second respondent remained exparte. The respondents 1,

3 and 4 filed counters denying the claim application and contended

that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the

respondents 1, 3 and 4 are not liable to pay any compensation to

the petitioners.

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

following issues:

                                 3                              VGKRJ
                                                    MACMA 1879 of 2015




 i.    Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of bus No.UP81N 9895 and Maruti van No.DL9CB 8761 and that resulted in death of the deceased Shaik Bude Saheb?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, 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 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5

and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1

was examined and Ex.B1 was 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 drivers of both the vehicles and the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.4,29,932/- to the claimants towards

compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal

claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

                                  4                               VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 1879 of 2015

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

offending vehicles, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW2,

who is the direct witness to the accident. As per the evidence of

PW2, himself along with the deceased and others planned to visit

Tajmahal at Agra and they engaged a Maruthi Van and when

reached Chata village, the van was slowed down by its driver, in the

meanwhile UPRTC bus bearing No.UP 81N 9895 came in opposite

to the van and hit the van, as a result, the deceased and other two

persons died. During the course of cross-examination, he admits

that there are five persons travelling in the Maruthi Van at the time

of accident other than the driver.

12. The first respondent examined RW1/S.Virpal Singh, who is the

driver of UPRTC bus. As per his evidence, he took over the bus at 5 VGKRJ MACMA 1879 of 2015

about 5.30 a.m. and after completing 2KMs journey, a Maruthi van

bearing No.DL9CB 8761 came in their opposite direction in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed the front part of the bus and van

driver alone is responsible to cause the accident. The Tribunal by

giving cogent reasons, came to conclusion that the accident was

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

bus and also the driver of the Maruthi Van, since the driver of the

van died, a case was registered against driver of the UPRTC bus,

who is alive and charge sheet was also filed against the driver of

RTC bus only. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons in its order

came to conclusion that the third and fourth respondents, who are

the insurers of first and second respondents are jointly liable to pay

the compensation. No appeal is filed by any of the respondents

against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with

the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for the

death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle Accident and the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.4,29,932/-. Coming to the age, avocation

and income of the deceased, the petitioners relied on the evidence 6 VGKRJ MACMA 1879 of 2015

of PW3. As per the evidence of PW3, the deceased worked as a

Sub Post Master and he used to draw net salary of Rs.5,443/- per

month. As per Ex.X1, the date of birth of the deceased was

01.06.1958 and as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged

about 48 years. Therefore, the Tribunal, from out of the net salary,

deducted 1/3 of income towards personal expenses of the deceased.

The net salary of the deceased was Rs.5,443/- i.e., after deducting

1/3 income of the salary it would come Rs.3,629/- per month i.e.,

Rs.43,548/- per annum. The dependents on the deceased are five

in number. Therefore, 1/4th income has to be deducted towards

personal expenses of the deceased. The net salary of the

deceased was Rs.5,443/- per month i.e., Rs.65,316/- per annum,

from out of Rs.65,316/-, ¼ income i.e., an amount of Rs.16,329/-

has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.

Therefore, net annual income available to the dependents of the

deceased is Rs.48,987/-. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road

Transport Corporation and others1 case, the multiplier applicable

to the age group of the deceased is '13'. Accordingly, the claimants

2009 ACJ 1298 7 VGKRJ MACMA 1879 of 2015

are entitled an amount of Rs.6,36,831/- (48,987 x 13) towards loss

of dependency. The claimants are further awarded an amount of

Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral

expenses and the first claimant is further awarded an amount of

Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium. In total, the claimants are

entitled compensation of Rs.7,06,831/- from the respondents.

14. It is not in dispute by both sides that both the offending

vehicles i.e., the crime vehicle of first respondent is insured with

forth respondent and the policy also in force and the crime vehicle of

second respondent is insured with third respondent and the policy is

in force and the drivers of the offending vehicles are also having

valid driving licenses by the date of accident. Therefore, 50% of the

enhanced compensation amount has to be deposited by

respondents 1 and 4 and the remaining 50% of the enhanced

compensation amount has to be deposed by respondents 2 and 3.

15. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by modifying the

order dated 19.01.2009 passed in MVOP No.118/2007 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,

Guntur and the claim amount is enhanced from Rs.4,29,932/- to 8 VGKRJ MACMA 1879 of 2015

Rs.7,06,831/-. The petitioners are entitled the enhanced

compensation of Rs.2,76,899/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the

date of petition, till the date of payment. The respondents 1 and 4

are directed to deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation with

proportionate interest before the Tribunal within two months from the

date of this judgment and the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to

deposit remaining 50% of the enhanced compensation with

proportionate interest before the Tribunal within two months from the

date of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled

to withdraw the same 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: 03.07.2023.

sj
                         9                            VGKRJ
                                          MACMA 1879 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1879 of 2015

03.07.2023

sj