Rs.13 vs Rs.30
2023 Latest Caselaw 3691 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

              M.A.C.M.A.No.872 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned Award and Order

dated 20.12.2012, passed in M.V.O.P.No.621 of 2009,

on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa,

whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.13,73,338/-was awarded towards compensation to

the claimants, this instant appeal is preferred by the

Insurance Company.

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: -

The deceased was aged about 42 years, working

as a Mandal Organizer of Rohini Bio Tech Private

Limited. On 03.04.2009, the deceased and the

VGKR, J MACMA.No.872 of 2013

complainant Giridhar Pakeera went to Vempalli in

order to attend a meeting of their company and while

they were returning in a motorcycle and proceeded to

Chapaieru to check the plantation in the fields at

about 4.00 p.m., they stopped the motorcycle on the

left side of the road meantime a Tata Sumo bearing

No.AP-09-TV-1877, being driven by its driver, in a rash

and negligent manner with high speed without blowing

horn came from Vempalli side and dashed against the

deceased. As a result, he sustained severe injuries on

his head and later he succumbed to injuries. A case in

Crime No.39 of 2009, was registered by the Station

House Officer, Vempalli, Police Station.

4. The 1st respondent remained set ex parte. The 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company filed a written

statement by denying the claim of the petitioners and

further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the

petitioners in excessive.

VGKR, J MACMA.No.872 of 2013

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

the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-09-TV-1877 and whether the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally are liable to answer the claim?

2. If so, what is the quantum of compensation that the petitioners are entitled to and who are liable to pay the compensation?

3. To what relief?

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

petitioners P.Ws.1 to 7are examined and Exs.A-1 to A-

12 are marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no

oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

7. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation

of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.13,73,338/- to the claimants towards

compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company filed this instant

appeal.

VGKR, J MACMA.No.872 of 2013

8. Heard both the counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is:

1. "Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? To what extent"?

POINT:

10. The case of the claimants is that the deceased

died in a road accident, which was caused by the

driver of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo), because of

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) the deceased died due to

injuries in an accident. In order to prove the claim of

the petitioners, they relied on the evidence of P.W-1

and P.W-2.Admittedly, P.W-1 is not an eye witness to

the accident.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 (Tata Sumo) bearing

No.No.AP-09-TV-1877. A case in Crime No.39 of 2009

was registered against the driver of the offending

VGKR, J MACMA.No.872 of 2013

vehicle. After completion of investigation, the

investigating Officer laid charge sheet under Ex.A-4.

The evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, coupled with the

documentary evidence clearly proves that the accident

in question is occurred due to rash and negligent

driving on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo. On

appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal

gave the same finding. Therefore, I do not find any

legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the

Tribunal.

11. Coming to the compensation, the claimants

claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards

compensation. In order to prove the claim of the

petitioners, the petitioners relied on the evidence of

P.Ws-3 to 7. The evidence of P.W-4 clearly goes to

show that the deceased was an L.I.C. Agent and he

was getting an amount of Rs.45,000/- per annum

during his life time by way of cheques, after his death,

VGKR, J MACMA.No.872 of 2013

his wife has been receiving the commission of

Rs.45,000/-.

12. The evidence of P.W-4 clearly proves that during

the life time, the deceased used to get an amount of

Rs.45,000/- per annum towards L.I.C commission,

after his death, his wife has been receiving the

commission of Rs.45,000/-. The evidence of P.W-4

clearly goes to show that the deceased is an organizer

and used to earn an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month

as a salary. The evidence of P.W-5 who is a Revenue

Officer of Ankalammagudur, shows that the deceased

was having a land of Ac.6.83 cents which is a rain fed

land and used to his annual Agricultural income was

around Rs.1,00,000/-. P.W-7 another Village Revenue

Officer has stated in his evidence the deceased was

having Ac.2.70 cents of land, which was also a rain fed

land. The evidence of

P.Ws-5 and 7 clearly goes to show that the deceased

possessed Ac.10.00 cents of land. After his death also,

VGKR, J MACMA.No.872 of 2013

the wife of the deceased was receiving an amount of

Rs.45,000/- per annum towards agent commission

from the L.I.C. After the death of the deceased in an

accident, the said land can be cultivated by the

deceased by engaging a coolies and the land is intact.

Therefore, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month is

arrived towards agricultural charges. The same has to

be taken into consideration of by assessing the loss of

dependency. As per the evidence of P.W-4, the

deceased used to get salary of Rs.5,000/- per month.

Therefore, in total, the monthly income of the deceased

Rs.8,000/- (Rs.5,000/- towards salary + Rs.3,000/-

towards agricultural charges) i.e., Rs.96,000/- per

annum (Rs.8,000/- x 12 = Rs.96,000/-). As per the

decision of Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another1, 1/3 has to be

deducted towards personal income of the deceased,

since the dependents on the deceased are 3 in

2009 ACJ 1298

VGKR, J MACMA.No.872 of 2013

number. If, 1/3 of the amount is deducted, net

amount available to the dependents on the deceased is

Rs.64,000/- (Rs.96,000/- - Rs.32,000/-). The relevant

multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased

is '14'. Therefore, an amount of Rs.8,96,000/-

(Rs.64,000/- x 14 = 8,96,000/-) was awarded to the

claimants towards loss of dependency, an amount of

Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium

to the 1st petitioner, an amount of Rs.30,000/-

towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.10,000/-

was awarded towards funeral expenses of the

deceased. In total, the claimants are entitled total

compensation of Rs.9,66,000/-. It is not in dispute

that the offending vehicle is insured with 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company and the policy is in

force and the driver of the offending vehicle is having

valid driving license by the date of accident. There are

no violations in the policy, the same is not in disputed

by the appellant/Insurance Company. Therefore, the

VGKR, J MACMA.No.872 of 2013

compensation amount of Rs.13,73,338/- is reduced to

Rs.9,66,000/-.

13. Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed by

modifying the award and order passed by the Tribunal

in M.V.O.P.No.621 of 2009, total compensation

amount of Rs.13,73,338/- awarded by the Tribunal is

reduced to Rs.9,66,000/-. The claimants are entitled

to an amount of Rs.9,66,000/- along with interest at

the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till

the date of realization. The award passed by the

Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. No

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO .07.2023.

CVD