Rs.11 vs Pranay Sethi And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3690 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.682 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned decree and order passed in

M.V.O.P.No.374 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Vehicle

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge,

Kadapa, whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.11,00,000/- towards total compensation to the claimants,

this instant appeal is preferred by 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company.

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 aforesaid M.V.O.P.No.374 of 2009 was filed by 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company, under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- for the

death of their son Narravula Rama Tejaswi in a motor vehicle

accident occurred on 12.01.2009. The 1st and 2nd claimants

are the parents of the deceased.

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

On 12.01.2009 at about 8:30 p.m., while the deceased

Narravula Rama Tejaswi and his friend Chennakesavulu were

proceeding on a Motor Cycle near Iqbal Rice Mill, Akkayapalli,

Kadapa, then the Lorry bearing No.AP 04T 0809 came from

behind on wrong side without blowing horn in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the Motor Cycle and

caused the accident. Due to the accident the deceased fell

down and the Lorry tyres ran over his waist resulting multiple

serious crush injuries. Immediately he was shifted to RIMS

Hospital, Kadapa and from their while he was shifted to higher

institution, on the way in the ambulance he succumbed to the

injuries and the accident is occurred only due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Lorry

bearing No.AP 04T 0809. A case in Crime No.7 of 2009 was

registered against the driver of the offending vehicle Lorry by

the Kadapa Taluk Police. 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd

respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle Lorry.

5. 1st respondent remained ex parte.

6. 2nd respondent filed a written statement by denying the

claim of the claimants and pleaded that the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing

No.AP 04T 0809, resulting the death of the

deceased by name Narravula Rama Tejaswi on

12.01.2009?

      2.     Whether the petitioners are           entitled   for

             compensation? If        so,   to   what     amount,

             and from whom?


      3.    To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claim

petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked

Exs.A1 to A20. On behalf of contesting 2nd respondent, no oral

or documentary evidence was adduced.

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

entire evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.11,00,000/- to the claimants towards total compensation

which is payable by both the respondents along with interest at

the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved thereby, 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company filed this instant appeal.

10. Heard both sides.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

1) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs

any interference? If so, to what extent?

POINT:

12. The contention of the claimants is that on 12.01.2009 at

about 8:30 p.m., the deceased and his friend Chennakesavulu

while proceeding on a Motor Cycle, at that time the Lorry

bearing No.AP 04T 0809 came from behind on wrong side

without blowing horn in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the Motor Cycle and caused the accident, due

to which the deceased fell down and sustained multiple serious

injuries and while he was shifting to higher institution, on the

way in the ambulance he succumbed to injuries. In order to

prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle Lorry, 1st claimant himself examined as

P.W.1. No doubt, he is not an eye witness to the accident.

The claimants relied on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.2 is an

eye witness to the accident. As per his evidence, the accident

in question is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle Lorry. Ex.A1 goes to show that

First Information Report was registered against the driver of

the offending vehicle Lorry and after completion of

investigation, the Investigating Officer laid Charge Sheet

against the driver of the offending vehicle Lorry. On

considering the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came

to conclusion that the accident in question is occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle

Lorry. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding

given by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere

with the above finding given by the Tribunal.

13. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal,

the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- towards

total compensation to the claimants. Admittedly, the deceased

was not an employee. The deceased being a B.Sc., Bio-Tech

Graduate. The Tribunal arrived the notional income of the

deceased was Rs.6,500/- per month. The quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disputing by the

appellant-Insurance Company, since the accident is occurred

in the year 2009 and the deceased was a B.Sc., Bio-Tech

Graduate. I am of the considered view that the notional

income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month

i.e., Rs.48,000/- per annum instead of Rs.6,500/- per month

as fixed by the Tribunal. Since the deceased was aged about

below 40 years, 40% has to be added to the said income

towards future prospects as per the decision of National

Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and Others1.

40% of Rs.48,000/- = Rs.19,200/-, therefore,

Rs.48,000/- + Rs.19,200/- = Rs.67,200/- has to be fixed

towards annual income of the deceased. Since the deceased

was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal

expenses. 50% of Rs.67,200/- = Rs.33,600/-, therefore, net

income available to the dependants on the deceased is

Rs.33,600/-. Since the deceased was aged about 22 years, the

AIR 2017 SC 5157

relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased

is 18 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2.

Therefore, Rs.33,600/- x 18 = Rs.6,04,800/- is awarded

towards loss of dependency. In addition to the loss of

dependency amount granted by this Court, the claimants are

entitled an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards

transportation charges and an amount of Rs.10,000/- is

awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased as granted

by the Tribunal. In addition to the above two conventional

heads, another amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards loss

of love and affection. In total the claimants are entitled an

amount of Rs.6,34,800/- towards total compensation.

14. In the result the appeal is partly allowed, the claim

amount granted by the Tribunal for an amount of

Rs.11,00,000/- is reduced to Rs.6,34,800/- along with interest

at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the

petition till the date of realization. 1st and 2nd respondents in

claim application are directed to deposit the remaining

2009 (4) SCJ 91

compensation with interest thereon on the balance amount.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Dt.25.07.2023 ANI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.682 of 2015

Dt.25.07.2023

ANI