Unknown vs Delhi Transport Corporation1 And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3497 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

            M.A.C.M.A.Nos.741 of 2013 and 60 of 2014


COMMON JUDGEMENT:


      M.A.C.M.A.No.741       of   2013     is   filed   by    the   2nd

respondent/Insurance company and M.A.C.M.A.No.60 of 2014 is filed

by the petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2011 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District

Judge, Tirupati.


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

passed in M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2011, 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 (1) (c)

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of C. Venkatadri @ C.Venkatadri Naidu,
                                    2
                                                                       VGKR,J
                                            MACMA Nos.741 of 2013 & 60 of 2014



who is husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3,

in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 02.04.2011.


5.    Facts

germane to dispose of the present appeals may briefly be

stated as follows:

On 02.04.2011 the deceased as a pillion rider and another were

proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03L 7115 and

when they reached near Park Hotel on Tirupati-Renigunta Road,

Tirupati, at about 7.00 p.m., a jeep bearing registration No.AP 04V

1820 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with

high speed came and hit the backside of the motor cycle, as a result,

the deceased and the rider of the motor cycle sustained severe

injuries and on 03.04.2021 the deceased succumbed to injuries while

undergoing treatment in the SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati. The 1st

respondent being owner and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the

offending jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation

to the petitioners.

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.741 of 2013 & 60 of 2014

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

respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the

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

pleaded that there was no valid permit for the offending jeep at the

time of accident, the driver of the offending jeep did not possess valid

and effective driving licence to drive the jeep, 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 deceased viz., C.Venkatadri died due to injuries received by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2.4.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing regn.No.AP 04V 1820 duly insured with the 2nd respondent as alleged?

2) Whether the petitioners being the legal representatives of deceased are entitled for compensation amount as alleged? If so, what is the quantum of compensation amount and against whom?

3) To what relief?

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.741 of 2013 & 60 of 2014

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

P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 and X.2

were marked. 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 the conclusion that the accident occurred

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

and accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting compensation of

Rs.18,40,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a.

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

2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.741 of 2013

questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal, while the

petitioners filed M.A.C.M.A.No.60 of 2014 for enhancement of

compensation.

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

record.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.741 of 2013 & 60 of 2014

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

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

12. POINT Nos.1 & 2: In order to prove the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending jeep, the petitioners relied on the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1, who is wife of the deceased, is not

an eye witness to the accident and in her evidence, she reiterated the

pleadings in the petition. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident as

well as rider of the motor cycle. He deposed in his evidence that on

the date of accident while himself and the deceased were coming on

a motor cycle as a rider and a pillion rider respectively, a jeep being

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the same

direction and hit on the backside of the motor cycle, due to that, they

sustained injuries. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.2

to discredit his evidence and P.W.2 also denied the contra

suggestions put to him. The petitioners also relied on Ex.A.1-certified

copy of first information report and Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge

sheet. Ex.A.1 clearly goes to show that on a complaint given by P.W.2,

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.741 of 2013 & 60 of 2014

the police registered a case against the driver of the offending jeep.

Ex.A.4 discloses that after completion of investigation into the

accident, the police laid a charge sheet against the driver of the

offending jeep. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1

and A.2 clearly prove that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending jeep belonging to the

1st respondent. The Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence on record,

also came to same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 50 years

at the time of accident and he was working as an Attender in T.T.D.

and earning salary of Rs.22,000/- p.m. In order to establish the same,

the petitioners got examined P.Ws. 1 to 3, out of them P.W.3 is an

employee in T.T.D., and relied on Exs.A.6-salary certificate and

Ex.X.2-service register of the deceased. On considering the material

evidence on record and by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal arrived

the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- after deducting

the statutory deductions i.e., Rs.2,40,000/- per annum. The Age of

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.741 of 2013 & 60 of 2014

the deceased is in between 51 to 55 years. The dependents on the

deceased are three in number. So, 1/3rd 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 was arrived at Rs.1,60,000/-

(Rs.2,40,000/- - Rs.80,000/-). As stated supra, the deceased was

aged in between 51 to 55 years as on the date of accident. The

relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is "11",

as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1 and the loss of dependency was

arrived at Rs.17,60,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- x multiplier '11'). Further, the

Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and transport

expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/-

towards loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to

the 1st petitioner. In total, the Tribunal by giving cogent reasons

awarded an amount of Rs.18,40,000/- towards compensation to the

2009 (4) SCJ 91

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.741 of 2013 & 60 of 2014

petitioners. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding

given by the Tribunal

14. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is the owner of the

offending jeep and he insured the jeep with the 2nd

respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1-copy of policy and the

policy was also in force on the date of the accident and the driver of

the offending jeep was having valid and effective driving licence at the

time of accident. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay

the compensation to the petitioners.

15. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality or

irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal and it is perfectly

sustainable under law and it warrants no interference and both the

appeals are devoid of merits, therefore, they are liable to be

dismissed.

16. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed, while confirming

the decree and order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the Chairman,

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.741 of 2013 & 60 of 2014

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge,

Tirupati, in M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2011. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall

stand closed.

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

VGKR,J MACMA Nos.741 of 2013 & 60 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.741 of 2013 and 60 of 2014

17th July, 2023 cbs