The vs District Judge (Ftc)
2023 Latest Caselaw 3648 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1578 of 2014


JUDGMENT:

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.855 of 2011

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

District Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali 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 section 140 and

163-A of A.P.Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 445 and 476 of A.P.Motor

Vehicles Rules against the respondents praying the Tribunal to

award an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation on

account of death of their son Sakhamuri Saisri Harsha in a Motor

Vehicle Accident occurred on 14.05.2011.

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

On 14.05.2011 at about 4.10 p.m., at Chenchupet, Tenali,

while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle, the driver of 2 VGKRJ MACMA 1578 of 2014

lorry bearing No.AP 16TX 2138 drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner and hit the deceased Saisri Harsha, resulting

which the deceased fell down from his motor cycle and sustained

multiple injuries, later succumbed to injuries and the petitioners

claimed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and

contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and

the second 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 had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16TX 2138?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

                                  3                               VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 1578 of 2014

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf

of the petitioners, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 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 occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.2,48,000/- 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 1578 of 2014




11.   POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on Ex.A1 certified copy of

First Information Report and Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet

and also relied on the evidence of PW1. PW1 is none other than

the mother of the deceased. The claim application is filed under

Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. The law is well settled that in

a claim under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, there is no need

to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle by the claimants. The claimants proved that the accident in

question was occurred in a Motor Vehicles Accident caused by the

offending lorry bearing No.AP 16TX 2138 by its driver, resulting the

death of the deceased. The Tribunal came to conclusion and gave

a finding that the accident in question was occurred by use of the

lorry bearing No.AP 16TX 2138 which was driven in a rash and

negligent manner by its driver. No appeal is filed by the

respondents against the said finding.

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

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,48,000/- to the claimants 5 VGKRJ MACMA 1578 of 2014

towards total compensation. On appreciation of entire evidence on

record, the Tribunal fixed the annual income of the deceased was

Rs.36,000/- notionally i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. On considering

the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

considered view that it is just and necessary to fix the notional

income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum instead of

Rs.36,000/- per annum. Since the claim application is filed under

Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, even though the deceased

was a bachelor, 1/3 of income has to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased, as per II schedule of Motor Vehicles Act.

The deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident.

The relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of deceased is 17.

If 1/3rd amount is deducted, the net income available to the

dependents on the deceased is Rs.26,667/- (40,000 - 13,333).

Accordingly, an amount of Rs.4,53,339/- (26,667 x 17) is awarded to

the petitioners towards loss of dependency.

13. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the first petitioner is not

the dependent on the earnings of his son. Second petitioner, who is

the mother of the deceased was only dependent on the earnings of 6 VGKRJ MACMA 1578 of 2014

her son and entire compensation was ordered to the second

petitioner. On considering the entire facts and circumstances of the

case, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards funeral,

obsequious and conveyance and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was

awarded towards loss of estate. Accordingly, Rs.14,000/- was

awarded by the Tribunal under the Conventional Heads. There is

no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal in

awarding compensation of Rs.14,000/- under the Conventional

Heads. Accordingly, the second petitioner is entitled an amount of

Rs.4,67,339/- towards total compensation. It is the case of both

sides that there are no violations in Ex.B1 policy and the offending

vehicle is insured with second respondent Insurance Company and

the policy is in force and the driver of the offending vehicle is having

valid driving licence by the date of accident.

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

order dated 30.11.2012 passed in MVOP No.855/2011 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XI Additional District

Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali, consequently the claim amount is

enhanced from Rs.2,48,000/- to Rs.4,67,339/-. The second 7 VGKRJ MACMA 1578 of 2014

petitioner is entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,19,339/-

with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of

realization. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation amount of Rs.2,19,339/- with interest as

ordered above, before the Tribunal within two months from the date

of this judgment. On such deposit, the second appellant 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: 24.07.2023.

sj
                         8                            VGKRJ
                                          MACMA 1578 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1578 of 2014

24.07.2023

sj