The vs District Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 3688 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2171 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.620 of 2006

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal

District Judge, Nellore 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 166 of

A.P.Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards

compensation on account of death of their son Billu Chenchu

Lakshmi Narayana in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

13.01.2006.

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

On 13.01.2006 at about 6.30 a.m. while the deceased was

proceeding in his Maruti car bearing No.TSA 2741 near Padigapati 2 VGKRJ MACMA 2171 of 2012

Koti Reddy fields at the outskirts of Bothalapalem village,

Damaracherla Mandal, Nalgonda District, a lorry bearing No.AP 16

TT 5729 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at

high speed came from Miryalaguda and dashed against the car of

the deceased while overtaking another lorry, thereby the car of the

deceased went underneath the lorry, as a result of which the

deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot itself and

the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- 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 occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle of respondent No.1 due to rash and 3 VGKRJ MACMA 2171 of 2012

negligent driving of its driver and it resulted in the death of the deceased?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?

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

of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5 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.2,69,600/- to the claimants towards

compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal

claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

                                   4                                  VGKRJ
                                                       MACMA 2171 of 2012

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?

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 lorry bearing No.AP 16 TT 5729. The same

is supported by Ex.A1 attested xerox copy of First Information

Report. The material on record proves about the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, 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 2171 of 2012

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

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,69,600/- to the claimants

towards total compensation. The contention of the petitioners is that

the deceased was doing house decorating articles business at

Hyderabad and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Infact to prove the

said plea, no evidence is adduced by the claimants. On

appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived the

daily income of the deceased, as a coolie, as Rs.80/- per day i.e.,

Rs.2,400/- per month, after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal

expenses of the deceased, it came Rs.1,600/- per month as

contribution to the family members of the deceased. The fact

remains that the accident was occurred in the year 2006. In those

days an ordinary coolie, who is aged about 25 years, can easily

earn Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, the daily income of the deceased

is arrived at Rs.100/- per day i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month i.e.,

Rs.36,000/- per year. Since the deceased was bachelor, half of the

amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.

After deducting half of the amount, the net income available to the

dependents on the deceased is Rs.18,000/- (36,000 /2) per annum.

The deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident.

                                  6                             VGKRJ
                                                    MACMA 2171 of 2012

The relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of deceased is 18.

Accordingly, an amount of Rs.3,24,000/- (18,000 x 18) is awarded to

the petitioners towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses and an amount

of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral and obsequies expenses. I am of the

considered view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the

said two conventional heads is quite reasonable. Therefore, in total,

the appellants/ claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.3,44,000/-

towards 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.

13. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order

dated 16.03.2009 passed in MVOP No.620/2006 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge,

Nellore, consequently the claim amount is enhanced from

Rs.2,69,600/- to Rs.3,44,000/-. The appellants/ claimants are

entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.74,400/- with interest 7 VGKRJ MACMA 2171 of 2012

@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.74,400/- with interest as ordered above,

before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment.

On such deposit, the appellants/ claimants are 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: 25.07.2023.

sj
                         8                            VGKRJ
                                          MACMA 2171 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.2171 of 2012

25.07.2023

sj