The vs District Judge (Fast Track Court)
2023 Latest Caselaw 3242 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.980 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance Company

in M.V.O.P.No.656 of 2005, on the file of the

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional

District Judge (Fast Track Court), Parvatipuram. The

respondents herein are the claimants and 1st respondent in

the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as

they are arrayed in claim application.

3. The aforesaid M.V.O.P.No.656 of 2005 was filed by

the claimants, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles

Act read with 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of

Sri Tadela Rama Rao, who died in a motor vehicle accident

occurred on 13.03.2005. 1st claimant is the wife, 2nd and

3rd claimants are the children and 4th and 5th claimants are

the parents of the deceased.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as

follows:

On 13.03.2005, Sri Tadela Rama Rao and four others

left the village in the Tractor Trailor bearing

No.AP 31 W 738/739 by 9:00 am, in order to load the same

with gravel near Kothkarra village mines as per the

instructions of 1st respondent. While the said Rama Rao

and four other labourers were loading the tractor with

gravel by digging the gravel, accidentally huge gravel fell on

them and thereby the said Rama Rao and four others died

on the spot at about 11:00 am. A case in Crime No.7/2005

under Section 304-A I.P.C. was registered against the

driver of the offending vehicle. 1st respondent is the owner

of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trailor and 2nd respondent

is the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trailor.

5. 1st and 2nd respondents filed a written statement by

denying the claim of the claimants.

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

learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the pleaded motor vehicle accident involving the Tractor-Trailor bearing No.AP 31 W 738/739 while it was in use in a public place?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

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

claimants, P.W.1 is examined and got marked Exs.A1 to

A5. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence is adduced

by the respondents.

8. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the

claimants towards compensation with proportionate costs

and interest at 6% per annum from both the respondents.

Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.2/Insurance Company

has filed the present appeal.

9. Now, the points for consideration is:

i) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs

any interference in the appeal?

        ii)     To what extent?


P O I N T S:

10. It is not in dispute that the claim application is filed

under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, there

is no need to prove the negligence of any person like driver

of the offending vehicle. The law is well settled that in a

claim under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, claimants

need not prove the rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle. It is sufficient to prove that the accident

has been taken place while the vehicle is being used on the

road. The facts in the present case reveals that the

deceased was died in a Tractor accident took place on

13.03.2005. On the other hand, the documents filed by

the claimants support the case of the claimants in Ex.A1

report. It was mentioned that one Karrothu Apparao who

was the driver of the offending vehicle had been working as

a driver since 10 years and it was further mentioned in the

First Information Report that on 13.03.2005 at 9:00 am, on

the instructions of 1st respondent, they started from

Bairipuram with labour to bring the gravel from Kotha

Karra mines, which is loosed soil and further mentioned

the labourers were engaged the digging the gravel in the

mines at about 11:00 am, suddenly the upper part of the

gravel fell on the labourers resulting which all the

labourers died underneath of the gravel, after thorough

investigation, based on the report given by the driver of the

offending vehicle, the Station House Officer,

Budarayavalasa Police Station registered a case in

Crime No.7/2005 under Section 304-A I.P.C.

11. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant

that the vehicle is implanted. No evidence is adduced and

no documents are marked by the respondents to prove

their plea in the written statement. On considering the

entire material on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion

that the accident was occurred, resulting the death of the

deceased due to involvement in a motor vehicle accident,

involving the Tractor-Trailor bearing No.AP 31 W 738/739

while it was used in a public place.

12. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal gave the said

finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the

said finding given by the Tribunal. No evidence is adduced

by the respondents to show that there are violations in the

policy issued by the Insurance Company.

13. Ex.A5 clearly goes to show that the offending vehicle

is insured with 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and

the policy is in force. The material on record reveals that

the age of the deceased was at 28 years and the monthly

income of the deceased was Rs.2,000/- i.e., Rs.24,000/-

per annum and the multiplier of 18 is also applied by the

Tribunal. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal

expenses (1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- = Rs.16,000/-) an amount

of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.16,000/- x 18) is awarded towards

loss of dependency by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also

awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony,

an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate

and an amount of Rs.2,500/- is awarded towards funeral

expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimants by restricting the claim up

to Rs.3,00,000/- even though the claimants are entitled

Rs.3,05,000/-. No appeal is filed by the claimants for

enhancement of the compensation.

14. Therefore, by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal

awarded just and reasonable compensation. I do not find

any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the

Tribunal in awarding compensation amount to the

claimants. Therefore, the impugned award is perfectly

sustainable under law and it warrants no interference.

15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the

award of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 27.06.2023 ANI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.980 of 2012

Dt.27.06.2023

ANI