Unknown vs Pranay Sethi 1
2023 Latest Caselaw 3493 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

           M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3337 of 2014 and 729 of 2015


COMMON JUDGEMENT:


      M.A.C.M.A.No.3337 of 2014 is filed by the claim petitioners

and    M.A.C.M.A.No.729       of    2015    is   filed   by      the   2nd

respondent/Insurance company in M.V.O.P.No.482 of 2010 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District

Judge, Kadapa.


2.    Since both the appeals arose from out of one decree and

order passed in M.V.O.P.No.482 of 2010, they are heard together

and are being disposed of by this common judgment.


3.    For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeals

will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.


4.     The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 476 of the A.P.M.V.

Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death
                                       2
                                                                              VGKR,J
                                                 MACMA Nos.3337 of 2014 & 729 of 2015



of Beduduri Suryanarayana Reddy, who is husband of 1 st petitioner,

father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of the 4 th petitioner, in a

motor vehicle accident that took place on 12.05.2010.


5.    Facts

germane to dispose of the present appeals may briefly

be stated as follows:

On 12.05.2010 when the deceased and another were standing

on the left side of the road near Gaddam Konaiah fields on

Pulivendula - Nallapureddipalli main road, a lorry bearing

registration No.AP 21T 3474 being driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed came from Pulivendula side and

dashed the deceased, due to that, the deceased fell down and the

lorry ran over him resulting in his instantaneous death. The Police,

Pulivendula P.S. registered a case in crime No.92 of 2010 against

the driver of the offending lorry. The 1st respondent being owner

and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending lorry are jointly

and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.3337 of 2014 & 729 of 2015

6. The 1st respondent remained set ex parte. The 2nd

respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying

the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

It is pleaded that the accident caused because of negligence of the

deceased, there was no fault on the part of the driver of the

offending lorry, the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving

licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance company is

not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were

settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No.AP 21T 3474 belonging to R.1 resulting in the death of the deceased B.Suryanarayana Reddy?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what extent, and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners,

P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.23 were marked.

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.3337 of 2014 & 729 of 2015

On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, no oral

evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material on

record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry

and accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting compensation

of Rs.10,72,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a.

against both the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the

claim petitioners filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3337 of 2014 for enhancement

of compensation, while the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed

M.A.C.M.A.No.729 of 2015 questioning the legal validity of the order

of the Tribunal.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the

record.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of compensation?

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.3337 of 2014 & 729 of 2015

2) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

12. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The material on record reveals that the

Police, Pulivendula P.S. registered a case in crime No.92 of 2010

against the driver of the offending lorry and after completion of

investigation into the accident, they filed a charge sheet against the

driver of the offending lorry. On considering the evidence of P.W.2

and Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.4-

certified copy of charge sheet, the Tribunal came to the conclusion

that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the 1st respondent. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in

the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount

of Rs.10,72,000/-. The material available on record shows that the

deceased owned Acs.10.60 cents of agricultural land and he used to

raise paddy, banana and other seasonal crops in the said land and

cultivating the said land personally by engaging coolies by ploughing

the land by supplying manures. The contention of the petitioners is

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.3337 of 2014 & 729 of 2015

that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. To support their

contention, the petitioners relied on Exs.A.5 to A.20. On considering

the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent reasons, the

Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the annual income of the

deceased was Rs.1,00,000/- and also fixed the age of the deceased

as 43 years. I do not find legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding

given by the Tribunal. To the annual income of the deceased, as per

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 1 , 25% from out of annual

income has to be added towards future prospects, since the

deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of accident. If it is so

added, the annual income of the deceased is arrived at

Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/-). The dependents on

the deceased are four in number. So, 1/4th from out of the annual

income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased. Having deducted as such, the annual contribution to the

family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.93,750/-

2017 (16) SCC 680

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.3337 of 2014 & 729 of 2015

(Rs.1,25,000/- - Rs.31,250/-). As stated supra, the deceased was

aged about 43 years as on the date of accident. The relevant

multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is "14", as per

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation 2 and the loss of dependency is

arrived at Rs.13,12,500/- (Rs.93750/- x multiplier '14'). Therefore,

the petitioners are entitled to Rs.13,12,500/- towards loss of

dependency.

14. Further, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,000/-

under conventional heads i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards loss of

consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate

and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. As per

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case (1

supra), the maximum amount to be awarded under conventional

heads is Rs.70,000/- only. In view of the same, the amounts

awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads are very low.

Therefore, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of

2009 (4) SCJ 91

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.3337 of 2014 & 729 of 2015

estate, Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st

petitioner and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of

the deceased. In total, a sum of Rs.13,82,500/- is awarded towards

compensation to the petitioners.

15. It is not in dispute that the offending lorry was owned by the 1st

respondent and it was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance

company under Ex.B.1-policy and the policy was also in force by the

date of accident. Therefore, there are no violations in Ex.B.1-policy

and both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the

petitioners.

16. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.3337 of 2014 filed by the

petitioners is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from

Rs.10,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.13,82,500/- and the

petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation of

Rs.3,10,500/-. Both the respondents are directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation of Rs.3,10,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.3337 of 2014 & 729 of 2015

Tribunal, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this

judgment. On such deposit, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to

withdraw Rs.80,000/- each along with interest thereon and the 4 th

petitioner is entitled to withdraw Rs.70,500/- along with interest

thereon. M.A.C.M.A.No.729 of 2015 filed by the 2nd

respondent/Insurance company is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J th 17 July, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.3337 of 2014 & 729 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3337 of 2014 and 729 of 2015

17th July, 2023 cbs