The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Basala Bhagyalakshmi Gajula ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1397 AP

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2584 of 2012 &
     CROSS OBJECTIONS No.5 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A.No.2584 of 2012


COMMON JUDGEMENT:

        Originally the appeal is filed by the second respondent/

Insurance company against the order passed in M.V.O.P.No.338 of

2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V

Additional District Judge, Vijayawada against which the claimants in

the said case filed cross objections vide Cross Objections No.5 of

2022. Since both the appeal and the cross objections relates to one

award, common judgment is pronounced in both the cases.

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

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 163-A of

Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents praying the Tribunal to

award an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of death of

deceased Basala Vullaiah in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

19.12.2005 at about 11.15. a.m. VGKRJ common judgment MACMA 2584 of 2012 & Page 2 of 9 Cross Objections No.5 of 2022 Dt:14.03.2023

4. The case of the claimants is that on 19.12.2005 at about 11.15

a.m. while the deceased was returning from Guntur to Vijayawada

on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 AN 8467 and when he

reached near Kali Garden, Peda Kakani, Guntur District, the driver

of bus bearing No.KR Z 3852 dorve the same in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and dashed

against the deceased, resulting which, the deceased sustained

multiple injuries, later succumbed to injuries while undergoing

treatment and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-

towards compensation.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counters denying the claim

application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any

compensation and the respondents are not liable to pay any

compensation to the petitioners.

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

following issues:

i. Whether the deceased B.Vullaiah died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.12.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of school bus bearing No.KRZ 3852 of R1 as claimed?

 VGKRJ                                common judgment MACMA 2584 of 2012 &
Page 3 of 9                                    Cross Objections No.5 of 2022
                                                              Dt:14.03.2023




 ii.      If so, what is the correct age and income of the
          deceased by the date of accident?
 iii.     Whether    the    petitioners   are   entitled    to   the

compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount?

iv. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined

and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X12 were marked. On behalf

of respondents RW1 to RW3 were examined and Ex.B1 was

marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

given a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an

amount of Rs.20,90,000/- to the claimants towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed the

present appeal, against which, the claimants filed cross objections

No.5 of 2022.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

 VGKRJ                         common judgment MACMA 2584 of 2012 &
Page 4 of 9                             Cross Objections No.5 of 2022
                                                       Dt:14.03.2023

2. Whether there is any ground to interfere with the finding given by the learned Tribunal in MVOP No.338 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, in the cross objections filed by the claimants?

11. POINTS 1 and 2 :-

The case of the petitioners is that the husband of first

petitioner was working as Junior Lecturer in Telugu at Saptagiri

College, Vijayawada and drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month.

On 19.12.2005 at about 11.15 a.m. while the deceased was

returning from Guntur to Vijayawada on his motor cycle bearing

No.AP 16 AN 8467 and when he reached near Kali Garden, Peda

Kakani, Guntur District, a bus bearing No.KRZ 3852 driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without

blowing horn and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased,

due to which, he sustained severe injuries and later he succumbed

to injuries in a private hospital at Guntur, against which, FIR was

registered by the police against the driver of the 1 st respondent.

Second respondent/ Insurance company pleaded that the accident VGKRJ common judgment MACMA 2584 of 2012 & Page 5 of 9 Cross Objections No.5 of 2022 Dt:14.03.2023

took place due to sole negligence of the deceased and there is no

negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.

12. In order to prove the case of the claimants, the claimants

relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the wife of the

deceased. She is not an eye-witness to the accident. PW2 is the

in-charge principal of said college. Ex.A1 certified copy of First

Information Report, Ex.A7 copy of charge sheet clearly goes to

show that after registering the FIR against the driver of the crime

vehicle of first respondent and after completion of investigation,

police filed charge sheet. As per Ex.A2 certified copy of Motor

Vehicle Inspector report, there are no mechanical defects to the

crime vehicle. On considering the documentary evidence on record,

the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident was occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the driver of first respondent. The

Tribunal also came to conclusion that even though the petition was

filed under Section 163-A of MV Act, on considering the entire

material on record, the Tribunal applied second schedule of the

Motor Vehicles Act.

 VGKRJ                            common judgment MACMA 2584 of 2012 &
Page 6 of 9                                Cross Objections No.5 of 2022
                                                          Dt:14.03.2023

13. In order to prove the claim of the claimants, the petitioners

relied on the evidence of PW2. As per the evidence of PW2, the

deceased used to work as a Junior Lecturer in Saptagiri College,

Vijayawada as on date of accident and Ex.A5 salary certificate of

deceased was marked through PW2. Ex.X1 salary-cum-service

certificate of deceased, Ex.X2 Form-16 of the deceased and Ex.X3

copy of extract of pay scale register were also got marked through

PW2. After giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal came to conclusion

that the net salary of the deceased is Rs.18,202/- per month and

after deducting the tax amount as per Ex.X5 to Ex.X12, the annual

income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.2,18,424/-. The learned

Tribunal by giving cogent reasons came to conclusion, by applying

decision of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport

Corporation and others1, that 10% has to be awarded towards

future prospects by considering his age and service and the learned

Tribunal by giving cogent reasons fixed the net income of the

deceased was Rs.18,200/- + Rs.1,800/- = Rs.20,000/- per month

and Rs.20,000/- x 12 = Rs.2,40,000/- per annum. Accordingly, the

net income of the deceased per annum by adding 10% of the future

2009 ACJ 1298 VGKRJ common judgment MACMA 2584 of 2012 & Page 7 of 9 Cross Objections No.5 of 2022 Dt:14.03.2023

prospects is fixed as Rs.2,40,000/-. I have perused the entire

record and on perusal of entire record, there is no need to interfere

with the said finding given by the learned Tribunal about the fixing of

Rs.2,40,000/- as a net income of the deceased. Here the claimants

are two, wife and son of the deceased. As per the decision of Sarla

Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and

others if the dependents are below 3 numbers, 1/3 has to be

deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly the

deceased contribution to his family members is Rs.1,60,000/- per

annum (Rs.2,40,000/- - Rs.80,000/- = Rs.1,60,000/-). The learned

Tribunal has fixed the multiplier applicable to the age group of the

deceased is '13'. But the Tribunal ignored Ex.X3 copy of extract of

pay scale register marked through PW2, who is the incharge

principal of the college. As per Ex.X3, the date of birth of the

deceased is 24.07.1955 and the date of accident is 19.12.2005.

Therefore the deceased completed 50 years by the date of accident

and therefore, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the

deceased i.e., 51 to 55 years is '11', instead of applying multiplier

'11', the Tribunal applied multiplier '13'. Therefore, the said finding VGKRJ common judgment MACMA 2584 of 2012 & Page 8 of 9 Cross Objections No.5 of 2022 Dt:14.03.2023

by fixing the multiplier as '13' is liable to be set aside and the

multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is '11' only.

Accordingly an amount of Rs.17,60,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- x 11 =

Rs.17,60,000/-) has to be granted to the petitioners towards

compensation and towards loss of consortium the learned Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, in total, an amount

of Rs.17,70,000/- is awarded to the petitioners instead of

Rs.20,90,000/-.

14. In the result, MACMA No.2584 of 2012, filed by the Insurance

Company, is partly allowed and the Cross Objections No.5 of 2022

filed by the claimants is rejected and the impugned award in MVOP

No.338 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum- V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is modified to the

extent as stated above. 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: 14.03.2023.

sj
 VGKRJ                          common judgment MACMA 2584 of 2012 &
Page 9 of 9                              Cross Objections No.5 of 2022
                                                        Dt:14.03.2023

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.2584 of 2012 & CROSS OBJECTIONS No.5 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A.No.2584 of 2012

14.03.2023

sj