The vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2023 Latest Caselaw 3240 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.No. 3106 of 2014

JUDGEMENT:

The appellants are claimants and the respondents are

respondents in M.V.O.P.No.115 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,

Kadapa at Proddatur.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will

be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 475 and 476 of the A.P.

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- towards

compensation for the death of Mallu Venkata Ravi Chandra Reddy,

who is son of claimant Nos.1 and 2 and brother of claimant No.3, in

a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.06.2002.

VGKR,J MACMA No.3106 of 2014

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

The deceased was working as A.P.S.P. Police Constable in XI

Battalion at Bakarapet, Kadapa District prior to the accident. Every

day he used to leave the battalion by 2.00 a.m. for practicing

running on the highway. On 19.06.2002 at about 3.00 a.m. the

petitioner was running on the highway and when he reached near

Kanamalopalli village on Kadapa-Rajampet high way, an

Ambassador car bearing registration No.AP 26F 8575 being driven

by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn

came and dashed against the deceased, as a result, the deceased

sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. The 1st respondent is

owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending car. The 3rd

respondent is the RC holder. Therefore, all the respondents are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 3rd respondent

reported no counter. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a

counter by denying the manner of accident and the age, avocation

and income of the deceased.

VGKR,J MACMA No.3106 of 2014

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the

following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased by name Mallu Venkata Ravi Chandra Reddy died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.06.2002 at 3.00 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing No.AP 26F 8575?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

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

the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7

were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, no oral or

documentary evidence was adduced.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.4,17,000/-

towards compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the

VGKR,J MACMA No.3106 of 2014

impugned award, the claimants preferred the present appeal for

enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

10. The ground urged by the appellants/claimants is that the

Tribunal erred in not awarding just compensation by applying

appropriate multiplier.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claimants are entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

12. POINT Nos.1 and 2 : On considering the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 and on considering Ex.A.1-certified copy of first

information report, Ex.A.2-certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3-

certified copy of post-mortem certificate and Ex.A.4-certified copy of

charge sheet, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was the

result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car belonging

VGKR,J MACMA No.3106 of 2014

to respondent No.1 and in the said accident, the deceased

succumbed to injuries. The respondents did not let in any evidence

challenging the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the

occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the

car of the 1st respondent by its driver. Further, no appeal was filed

by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no

need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as

APSP Police Constable and drawing salary of Rs.4,776/- per month

and the claimants are the dependants on the deceased and the

deceased was aged about 24 years by the date of accident. The

respondents did not put any suggestion to P.W.1, who is father of

the deceased, with regard to the salary and profession and age of

the deceased. However, the respondents admitted that the

deceased was a Government employee. Based on Ex.A.5-pay

certificate of the deceased, by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal

arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,347/- i.e.,

Rs.52,164/- per annum. But, the Tribunal erred in taking into

VGKR,J MACMA No.3106 of 2014

consideration the multiplier „15‟ based on the age of the mother of

the deceased instead the age of the deceased, for arriving at the

loss of dependency. As stated above, the deceased was aged

about 24 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age

group of the deceased is "18", as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1.

Since the deceased was a Bachelor, 50% from out of the annual

income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased. After deducting as such, the annual contribution to the

family members of the deceased is arrived at Rs.26,082/-

(Rs.52,164/- - Rs.26,082/-) and the loss of dependency is arrived at

Rs.4,69,476/- (Rs.26,082/- x multiplier „18‟). In addition to that, an

amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and an

amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and loss of

love and affection. In total, a sum of Rs.4,94,476/- is awarded

towards compensation to the claimants.

2009 (4) SCJ 91

VGKR,J MACMA No.3106 of 2014

14. As per Ex.A.7-copy of insurance policy, the 3rd respondent is

the owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending car and

the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. No violations

of the policy conditions are attributed by the Insurance company.

Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the liability against respondent Nos.2

and 3 only. No appeal was filed by the Insurance company against

the said finding. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the Tribunal

warrants no interference by this Court.

15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the

compensation of Rs.4,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to

Rs.4,94,476/- and the claimants are entitled to enhanced

compensation of Rs.77,476/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date

of petition till the date of payment by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the enhanced

compensation of Rs.77,476/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. before the

Tribunal within two months from the date of the judgment. On such

deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the enhanced

compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon equally.

VGKR,J MACMA No.3106 of 2014

The order of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. No

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J th 27 June, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.3106 of 2014

HON ‟BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 3106 of 2014

27th June, 2023 cbs