MACMA/1068/2015
2023 Latest Caselaw 3217 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1068 of 2015


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.09.2014 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- III Additional District Judge,

Guntur passed in M.V.O.P.No.104 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal

has partly allowed the claim against the respondents, the instant

appeal is preferred by the appellants.

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards

compensation for the death of Vakkalagadda Siva Parvathi in a

Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 07.10.2009.

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

The appellants are the claimants in the claim application filed

by the claim petitioners and the deceased was a teacher working in 2 VGKRJ MACMA 1068 of 2015

Z.P.High School, Ganapavaram, aged about 46 years and drawing

salary of Rs.16,000/- per month. First and second petitioners are

the brother and niece of the deceased and the second petitioner is

solely depending on the earnings of the deceased and except both

the petitioners, there are no other legal heirs to the deceased.

While so, on 07.10.2009, the deceased along with her

colleague Padmavathi (PW2) was proceeding to her work on her

two wheeler as a pillion rider, when they reached Polimeru donka of

Turupupalem, the driver of mini bus bearing No.AP 07 X 9514,

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing

horn, dashed the scooty of Padmavathi, resulting which the

deceased died on the spot and the said Padmavathi sustained

severe injuries.

5. The first respondent, owner of mini bus, having received

notice, did not come forward to dispute the claim of the petitioners

and remained exparte.

6. The second respondent Insurance company filed a counter

with a plea that the deceased was unmarried and died without

leaving behind any legal heirs and the petitioners are neither her 3 VGKRJ MACMA 1068 of 2015

legal heirs nor dependents and they are not entitled for

compensation under law and further contend that the accident

occurred due to negligence of the rider of motor cycle on which the

deceased was proceeding. As such, there is a contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased and that the claimants are

not entitled any compensation from the Insurance Company.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of mini bus bearing No.AP 07X 9514, on 07.10.2009, which resulted the death of Vakkalagadda Siva Parvathi?

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

iii. To what relief?

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

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

Ex.A7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of

respondents, however Ex.B1 was marked.

                                  4                               VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 1068 of 2015

9. 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.50,000/- to the claimants towards

compensation. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the

claimants filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance of

compensation amount.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

11. Now, the point for consideration is:

      Whether     the   Order        of   Tribunal   needs     any
      interference? If so, to what extent?


12.   POINT :-

The appellants are claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

Basing on the material on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion

that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the mini bus bearing No.AP 07X 9514. On appreciating

the evidence on record, on considering the evidence of PW2 who is 5 VGKRJ MACMA 1068 of 2015

an eye witness to the accident and also on considering Ex.A1

certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A2 certified copy of

charge sheet, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident was

occurred due to the pure negligence on the part of the driver of the

offending vehicle. Therefore, there is no legal flaw or infirmity in the

above finding given by the Tribunal.

13. The learned counsel for Insurance Company argued that the

claimants are not dependents on the earnings of the deceased. The

first claimant is none other than the elder brother of the deceased,

who is aged about 44 years and the second claimant is none other

than the daughter of the first claimant who is aged about 18 years.

They are not the dependents on the earnings of the deceased. To

claim the compensation towards loss of dependency, it is obligatory

on the part of the claimants to establish that they have suffered loss

of pecuniary benefits being enjoyed by them as a dependents on the

deceased, then only they are entitled for compensation under the

head of loss of dependency. Absolutely, no evidence is produced

by the claimants to show that they are the dependents on the

earnings of the deceased. Though the petitioners pleaded that the 6 VGKRJ MACMA 1068 of 2015

second petitioner is the adopted daughter of the deceased, but the

same was not proved by the petitioners. Admittedly PW1 is the

father of the second petitioner, who is having own source of

earnings. Therefore, she is not considered as adopted daughter of

the deceased.

14. The Tribunal by applying a principle laid down by Apex Court

in its judgment in "Hafizun Begam Vs. Md.Ikram Huque and

others and Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company

Limited, when the relatives of the deceased though they are legal

heirs but not his or her dependents in such case, the liability under

Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of

dependency, similarly in this case also though the petitioners have

not suffered loss of dependency on account of death of the

deceased, and admittedly petitioner No.1, being the brother of the

deceased, is considered to be her legal heir, and who comes under

the category of clause (d) of sub Section (1) of Section 15 of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, therefore, by following the dictum of

Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is held the petitioners are

entitled for the compensation under statutory liability provided under 7 VGKRJ MACMA 1068 of 2015

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence, the petitioners

are awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation and the same is equally

apportioned among them". The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons

in its order awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section

140 of Motor Vehicle Act. No appeal is filed by the Insurance

Company against the said finding. From the foregoing discussion,

the award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law

and it warrants no interference. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to

be dismissed.

15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. 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: 26.06.2023.

sj
                         8                            VGKRJ
                                          MACMA 1068 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1068 of 2015

26.06.2023

sj