The vs District And Sessions Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 3410 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.306 of 2014


JUDGMENT:

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.178 of 2009

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

District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi and the respondent is the

respondent 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(1)(c) of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards

compensation on account of death of deceased Shaik Khader Valli

in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 21.02.2009.

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

On 21.02.2009 while the deceased Shaik Khader Valli was

going on his un-registered Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle

from Chinnagottigallu towards Deendarlapalle village and when he 2 VGKRJ MACMA 306 of 2014

reached tank bund in Chinnigottigallu at about 1.45 p.m., the driver

of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3172 drove the same in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of Shaik

Khader Valli, resulting which the said Khader Valli sustained multiple

injuries and died on the spot and the petitioners claimed an amount

of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The respondent filed counter denying the claim of claimants

and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation

and the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the

petitioners.

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

following issues:

i. Whether the deceased S.Khader Valli died due to injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28Z 3172 as alleged?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

                                  3                               VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 306 of 2014

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. No oral and documentary evidence was

adduced on behalf of respondents.

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.7,30,000/- to the claimants towards

compensation.

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

claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

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?

                                  4                               VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 306 of 2014




11.   POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

The Tribunal by relying on the evidence of PW2/ eye-witness

to the accident and Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report

and Ex.A4 certified copy of charge sheet, came to conclusion that

the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 3172. The

Tribunal by giving cogent reasons came to the said conclusion. The

material on record also proves the same. Therefore, three is no

legal flaw or infirmity in the above finding given by the Tribunal.

12. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,30,000/- to the claimants

towards total compensation. The case of the petitioners is that the

deceased used to work as a driver and earning an amount of

Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioners relied on Ex.A6 pass port of

the deceased, Ex.A7 driving licence of deceased and Ex.A8 validity

identity card of the deceased at Kuwait and in all the documents, the

date of birth of the deceased was noted as 05.09.1972. Therefore,

the age of the deceased by the date of accident was 37 years. On

considering the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived 5 VGKRJ MACMA 306 of 2014

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. The

Tribunal held that in Ex.A2, the profession of the deceased was

noted as a coolie. The Tribunal further held in its order that Ex.A6

passport of the deceased reveals that he went to Kuwait and return

back to India in the year 2009 and later he died in the road accident.

The Tribunal by appreciating the entire evidence on record, came to

conclusion that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.5,000/-

per month only. Absolutely no proof is filed by the claimants to

prove the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per

month. Atleast, the claimants did not adduce any oral evidence to

support their case that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per

month. On appreciation of the entire material on record, the

Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased, in those days

i.e., in the year 2009, as Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, annual

income of the deceased was Rs.60,000/-. The dependents on the

deceased are 5 in number, 1/4th income of the deceased has to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th of

income is deducted, the net income available to the dependents on

the deceased is Rs.45,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied

multiplier as 15, but as stated supra, the age of the deceased was 6 VGKRJ MACMA 306 of 2014

37 years, therefore as per the decision of Sarla Verma's case, the

correct multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is 16.

Accordingly, an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- (45,000 x 16) is awarded to

the petitioners towards loss of dependency.

13. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss

of consortium to the first petitioner and also awarded an amount of

Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. There is no need to interfere

with the finding given by the Tribunal in awarding an amount of

Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner and an

amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. An amount of

Rs.20,000/- only was awarded towards loss of estate by the Tribunal,

the same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants

are entitled an amount of Rs.7,90,000/- towards total compensation.

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

order dated 26.07.2010 passed in MVOP No.178/2009 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Tirupati and the claim amount is enhanced from

Rs.7,30,000/- to Rs.7,90,000/-. The petitioners are entitled the 7 VGKRJ MACMA 306 of 2014

enhanced compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The respondent

corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation

amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest as ordered above, before the

Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such

deposit, the first appellant/ first petitioner is entitled to withdraw the

same. 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: 13.07.2023.

sj
                        8                            VGKRJ
                                         MACMA 306 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.306 of 2014

13.07.2023

sj