Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs District & Sessions Judge on 18 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2494 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.191 of 2007
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram 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 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the
Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards
compensation on account of death of deceased Garapati
Venkateswara Rao @ Venkanna in a Motor Vehicle Accident
occurred on 26.10.2007.
4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
The deceased was working as driver on the buses belongs to
Gagana Tours and Travels, Hyderabad. On 24.10.2007 in the
2 VGKRJ
MACMA 2494 of 2012
evening at 6.00 p.m. he attended duty on a bus bearing No.AP 9X
3355 and started at Bhimavaram to go to Hyderabad along with
cleaner Chuttugalla Durgarao and reached Hyderabad on
25.10.2007 in the morning. Again on the same day i.e., 25.10.2007
the deceased started at Hyderabad as a driver in the said bus to go
to Amalapuram and the bus reached Vijayawada at about 6.00 a.m.
on 26.10.2007 and started at Vijayawada at 6.05 a.m. and when
reached near petrol bunk weigh bridge o NH-5 road in Gannavaram
of Krishna District at about 6.30 a.m., by that time a lorry bearing
No.AP 07TU 3489 being driven by the first respondent going ahead
and the first respondent drove the offending lorry in a rash and
negligent manner without taking precaution and without giving any
signal came from left side to right side in a negligent manner. The
deceased though applied brakes but could not stop the vehicle as all
of a sudden the first respondent brought the offending lorry from the
left side to right side and dashed against the bus, resulting which the
deceased and cleaner of the bus received grievous injuries and the
deceased died while undergoing treatment.
3 VGKRJ
MACMA 2494 of 2012
5. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained exparte. The third
respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and
further pleaded that the claim of the petitioners is excessive. The
fifth respondent filed counter with a plea that the entire negligence is
on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus i.e., the deceased
herein and the fifth 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 accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the van i.e., AP 07TU 3489 by
its driver i.e., 1st respondent?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
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.A9
4 VGKRJ
MACMA 2494 of 2012
were marked. None were examined on behalf of respondents,
however 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 not occurred due to
negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal
dismissed the petition.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal
claiming the 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
compensation as prayed for?
11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-
In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW2.
PW2 is the cleaner of the bus, who travelled along with the driver of
5 VGKRJ
MACMA 2494 of 2012
the bus i.e., deceased in this case. The material on record reveals
that PW2 lodged a complaint before the police and on the said
complaint the Station House Officer, Gannavaram police station
registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle. The
Tribunal held in its order that the claim petitioners did not file the
charge sheet by proving that there was no negligence on the part of
the deceased and entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle/ first respondent. The counsel for the appellants
would submit that after completion of investigation, the Station
House Officer, Gannavaram police station filed a charge sheet
against the driver of the lorry i.e., first respondent. In order to prove
the same, the claim petitioners filed a certified copy of the charge
sheet filed by the police, after notice to the other side, before this
Court. The said charge sheet and other connected record clearly
reveals that the accident in question was occurred due to pure
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry bearing
No.AP 07 TU 3489. PW2 who is an eye witness to the accident and
who is the cleaner of the bus, who travelled along with the deceased
is a natural witness and his presence at the time of accident is
highly probable, therefore importance has to be given to his
6 VGKRJ
MACMA 2494 of 2012
evidence. The evidence of PW2 also supports that because of the
negligence of the driver of the lorry i.e., first respondent, the
accident was occurred in which the deceased died. Therefore, in
view of the above reasons, the petitioners proved that the accident
in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
first respondent herein.
12. In order to prove the contention of the respondents, no
evidence was adduced by the respondents, except marking Ex.B1
copy of policy. To disprove the evidence of PW1 to PW3 no
evidence is adduced by the respondents. The driving licence
particulars of the first respondent is noted in Ex.A3 Motor Vehicles
Inspector's report, therefore, there are no violations in Ex.B1
Insurance policy and the offending vehicle lorry is insured with third
respondent Insurance Company by the second respondent and the
policy is in force and the driver of the offending vehicle is having
valid driving licence by the date of accident, therefore, third
respondent, being the insurer of the second respondent, has to
indemnify the second respondent.
7 VGKRJ
MACMA 2494 of 2012
13. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application with a conclusion
that the claim petitioners failed to prove the rash and negligent
manner of the driver of the offending vehicle. The claim petitioners
who are none other than the wife and two daughters of the
deceased filed the claim application. The case of the claimants is
that the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as a driver of
the bus. In order to prove the same, the petitioners did not adduce
any cogent evidence to show that the deceased used to earn
Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident was occurred in the year 2007.
In those days an ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.100/- per day
i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of the
deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000/- per
annum. The dependents on the deceased are three in number,
therefore 1/3rd income has to be deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased. If 1/3rd income is deducted, the net
income available to the family members of the deceased is
Rs.24,000/- per annum. Ex.A4 Post Mortem report reveals that the
age of the deceased is 45 years by the date of accident. As per the
decision of Sarla Verma, the relevant multiplier applicable to the
age group of the deceased is 14. Accordingly, an amount of
8 VGKRJ
MACMA 2494 of 2012
Rs.3,36,000/- (24,000 x 14) is awarded to the claim petitioners
towards loss of dependency. An amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded
towards loss of consortium to the first petitioners, an amount of
Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased.
In total, the claim petitioners are entitled an amount of Rs.3,56,000/-
towards compensation. For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal
committed error in dismissing the claim application. Accordingly, the
award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
14. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the order dated
27.06.2012 passed in MVOP No.191/2007 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Amalapuram is set aside, consequently the claimants are
entitled an amount of Rs.3,56,000/- towards total compensation with
interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization.
The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposit the compensation
amount of Rs.3,56,000/- with interest as ordered above, within two
months from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal. On such
deposit, the first appellant is entitled to withdraw an amount of
Rs.1,56,000/- together with total costs and interest thereon and the
9 VGKRJ
MACMA 2494 of 2012
second and third appellants are entitled to withdraw an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- each together with interest there on. 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: 18.07.2023.
sj
10 VGKRJ
MACMA 2494 of 2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2494 of 2012
18.07.2023
sj
