Motor Accident Claims vs Vgkr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3551 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.772 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned Award and Order dated

19.05.2011, passed in M.V.O.P.No.141 of 2008, on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Anantapur, whereby

the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the

claimants from both respondent, this instant appeal is preferred

by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they

are arrayed in claim application.

3. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may be briefly

stated as follows:-

On 18.10.2007, at about 1.30 P.M., the deceased boy

Ahamad along with one of his assistants by name Shabir Basha,

was proceeding to Gooty from Anantapur, in order to attend to

the air conditioning repair works of N.T.P.C at Gooty in

A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-1226. At about, 2.45 p.m.,

the bus was about 3 Kms away from Gooty, the driver of the bus

drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without VGKR, J MACMA.No.772 of 2012

following any traffic rules and safety norms and could not

control the same and dashed the stationed lorry bearing No.AP-

29-U-0277 from its back side when the lorry was stationed on

the left side of the road. Due to that the deceased who sat on

the one of the left side received fracture injuries on his both legs

grievous injuries on his head and internal organs were damaged

heavily. The deceased was immediately shifted to Gooty,

Government Hospital, due to injuries, while undergoing the

treatment he was succumbed to injuries on 25.10.2007. The

deceased was aged about 20 years by the date of accident.

4. The respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C filed counter by denying the

claim of the claimants. The contention of the respondent is that

the A.P.S.R.T.C bus driver is not at all liable to pay any

compensation.

5. Based on the above pleadings the following issues are

settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 18.10.2007 due to

rash and negligent-driving of the driver of the

A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-1226 dashed

against the stationed lorry bearing No.AP-29-U-0277

and caused the death of the deceased?

VGKR, J MACMA.No.772 of 2012

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation?

If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

3. To what relief?

6. During the course of the enquiry, on behalf of the

petitioners P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and marked as Exs.A-1 to

A-10. On behalf of the respondent none were examined and no

documents are marked.

7. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of the

entire evidence on record the Tribunal came to conclusion that

the claimants are entitled to total compensation of an amount of

Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum

from the respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C. Aggrieved against the said

award the respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C filed this instant appeal.

8. Heard both the learned counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is:

"Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any

interference"?

POINT:

VGKR, J MACMA.No.772 of 2012

10. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, he deposed in his

evidence that his son travelled in the offending vehicle R.T.C.

bus on the date of accident and due to said accident, his son

died while undergoing the treatment. The said accident was

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus only. P.W-3 is the eye witness

to the accident. The evidenceofP.W-3 is coupled with Ex.A-1

FIR and Ex.A-5 charge sheet clearly shows that because of the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus only, the said

accident occurred and the deceased received severe injuries

later succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The

Tribunal also came to same conclusion. Therefore, I do not find

any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the

Tribunal. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by

giving cogent reasons the Tribunal came to conclusion that the

deceased was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. By

giving cogent reasons the Tribunal arrived the monthly income

of the deceased was at Rs.5,000/- per month and annual

income of the deceased was arrived at Rs.60,000/-. I do not

find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the

Tribunal 1/3rd amount deducted towards personal expenses of

the deceased by the Tribunal. The deceased was bachelor 50% VGKR, J MACMA.No.772 of 2012

has to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, as

per the decision of Smt Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another1. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.30,000/- per annum is available to the dependents towards

loss of dependency (Rs.60,000/- - Rs.30,000/-). The age of the

deceased was 20 years, therefore, appropriate multiplier

applicable to the age group of 15 to 25 years is '18'. Therefore,

the petitioners are entitled an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- towards

loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/-towards funeral

expenses, On considering the medical bills Ex.A-10, Ex.A-9 and

Ex.A-8 the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards

medical expenses. The claimants are entitled total compensation

of Rs.5,90,000/- only. (Rs.5,40,000/- + Rs.35,000/-

+Rs.15,000/- = 5,90,000/-). Consequently, the claim amount of

Rs.6,50,000/- granted by the Tribunal is reduced to

Rs.5,90,000/. The claimants are entitled for an amount of

Rs.5,90,000/- towards compensation. The award and decree

passed by the Tribunal is modified and the claimants are

entitled total compensation of Rs.5,90,000/- with proportionate

costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date

2009 (4) SCJ 91 VGKR, J MACMA.No.772 of 2012

of petition till the date of realization. The respondent is directed

to deposit the remaining balance amount within two (2) months

with interest of 7.5% per annum. On such deposit, the 1st

claimant is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-,

2nd claimant is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-

and 3rd and 4th claimants are entitled to withdraw an amount of

Rs.70,000/- each with interest thereon.

11. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

____________________________________

JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

19.07.2023.

CVD