Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs Additional District & Sessions ... on 25 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1031 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellants are the Claimants 1 and 2 in M.V.O.P.No.493
of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-IV
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati and the respondents
are the respondents 1 and 2 and petitioners 3 and 4 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 1 to 4 filed a Claim Petition under section 166
(1) (c) of A.P.Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents
praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards
compensation on account of death of the deceased K.Doorvasulu
Naidu in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 11.04.2004.
4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
On 11.04.2004 at about 9.45 p.m. while the deceased
K.Doorvasulu Naidu was proceeding on his Yamaha Motor cycle
and when he reached near Mango garden of Giridhar Naidu on
2 VGKRJ
MACMA 1031 of 2012
Nagari to Nagalapuram main road, a milk van bearing No.TN 21 A
7574, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from
opposite direction, dashed against the motor cycle of Doorvasulu
Naidu, resulting which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and
died on the spot itself and the petitioners claimed an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- 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 deceased Kilari Doorvasulu Naidu
died in a motor vehicle accident on 11.04.2004 at
about 9.45 a.m. near Mango garden of Giridhara
Naidu on Nagari to Nagalapuram main road due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of milk van
bearing registration No.TN 21A 7674 belonging to
3 VGKRJ
MACMA 1031 of 2012
the first respondent, insured with second
respondent?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed for in the petition?
iii. To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf
of the petitioners, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10
were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined and
Ex.X1 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.4,66,820/- to the claimants towards
compensation.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants 1 and 2 filed the present
appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.
10. Now, the points for consideration are:
4 VGKRJ
MACMA 1031 of 2012
1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any
interference?
2. Whether the claimants 1 and 2 are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as prayed for?
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 the evidence of PW1 and
PW2. Admittedly PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2
is an eye witness to the accident. As per his evidence, the accident
in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending milk van bearing No.TN 21 A 7574. The
same is supported by Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information
Report and Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet. The material on
record proves about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending milk van, resulting accident, in which the deceased
sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot itself. On appreciation
of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the same
conclusion. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the
said finding given by the Tribunal.
5 VGKRJ
MACMA 1031 of 2012
12. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,66,820/- to the claimants
towards total compensation. The petitioners pleaded that in view of
the sudden death of the deceased, they lost their dependency. The
first petitioner is wife of the deceased, the second petitioner is the
minor son of the deceased, third and fourth petitioners are the
parents of the deceased. The material on record reveals that the
deceased was aged about 32 years by the date of accident. As per
the evidence of PW3, the deceased Doorvasulu Naidu was working
as Assistant in Mayuri Sugar Factory and his gross salary was
Rs.3,120/- per month and Ex.A9 is the salary certificate issued by
the factory authorities. The contention of the petitioners is that the
deceased possessed Ac.20.00 cents of land and getting
Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. As rightly held by the Tribunal, no
evidence is produced by the petitioners to show that the deceased
possessed Ac.20.00 cents of land. In fact, no revenue record is filed
by the petitioners to prove the said plea.
13. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal
came to conclusion that the monthly salary of the deceased was
6 VGKRJ
MACMA 1031 of 2012
Rs.3,120/- per month and his annual income as Rs.37,440/-. Here
the deceased was aged about 32 years, as per the judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 40% of income has to
be awarded in addition to the original income towards future
prospects. If 40% of income is added to Rs.37,440/-, it comes to
Rs.52,416/- (37,440 + 14,976). The dependents on the deceased
are four in number. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sarla Verma's case, 1/4th income has to be deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th income is deducted
from out of Rs.52,416/-, it comes to Rs.39,312/- (52,416 - 13,104).
The relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of deceased is 16.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs.6,28,992/- (39,312 x 16) is awarded to
the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
14. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards
funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards
loss of love and affection and an amount of Rs.15,000/- was
awarded to the first petitioner towards loss of consortium. The
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.27,500/- towards conventional
heads. I am of the considered view that the amount awarded by the
7 VGKRJ
MACMA 1031 of 2012
Tribunal under the said three conventional heads is quite
reasonable. Therefore, in total, the appellants/ claimants are
entitled an amount of Rs.6,56,492/- towards compensation.
15. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal
came to conclusion that the offending vehicle is insured with second
respondent Insurance Company and the policy is in force. On
appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to
conclusion that the vehicle was having permit to transport the goods
in Tamilnadu State only, but the accident took place in Andhra
Pradesh and further the Tribunal applied pay and recovery principle.
The Tribunal directed the second respondent/ Insurance Company
to pay the compensation amount to the claimants at first instance
and later recover the same from the first respondent/ owner of the
offending vehicle. Since no appeal is filed by the respondents
against the said finding given by the Tribunal, there is no need to
interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
16. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order
dated 16.11.2007 passed in MVOP No.493/2004 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District &
8 VGKRJ
MACMA 1031 of 2012
Sessions Judge, Tirupati, consequently the claim amount is
enhanced from Rs.4,66,820/- to Rs.6,56,492/-. The appellants/
claimants 1 and 2 are entitled the enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,89,672/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till
the date of realization. The 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company is
directed to deposit remaining compensation amount with interest as
ordered above within two months from the date of this judgment,
before the Tribunal at first instance and later recover the total
compensation amount with interest from the first respondent/ owner
of the offending vehicle, by filing an Execution Petition and without
filing any independent suit. On deposit of enhanced compensation,
the appellants/ petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw the same
along with costs and accrued interest thereon. 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: 25.07.2023.
sj
9 VGKRJ
MACMA 1031 of 2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1031 of 2012
25.07.2023
sj
