The National Insurance Co Ltd vs Nannapaneni Suguna 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1418 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3903 of 2014


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.362 of

2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal

District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole and the respondents are the

petitioners and respondents 1 and 3 in the said case.

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 sections 166 and

167 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents by praying the

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

compensation on account of death of deceased Nannapaneni

Krishna in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 14.08.2010.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 14.08.2010, the deceased

Nannapaneni Krishna and his friend Sirigiri Hanumantharao were

proceeding to Singarayakonda Prasannanjaneya Swamy temple

from Karuvali village on their two wheeler bearing No.AP 16 AQ VGKRJ MACMA 3903 of 2014 Page 2 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023

7467 belonging to the deceased, who was riding the motor cycle

and his friend Hanumantharao was the pillion rider, and when they

crossed railway gate, one tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 21 W

8475 and 8474 came from behind the motor cycle in a rash and

negligent manner and hit the motor cycle and ran over them,

resulting which they received multiple injuries and died on the spot

and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards

compensation for the death of Nannapaneni Krishna.

5. The third respondent remained exparte. The respondent Nos1

and 2 filed counters by denying the claim application and contended

that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and they 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 accident dated 14.08.2010 in which the deceased Nannapaneni Krishna died, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor

W 8474 by third respondent as alleged in the petition?

 VGKRJ                                                MACMA 3903 of 2014
Page 3 of 10                                          Dt: 15.03.2023




 ii.    Whether        the     petitioners    are   entitled   for

compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 to PW4 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. On behalf of

respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, 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.10,00,000/- to the claimants towards

compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/ Insurance

company filed the present appeal.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

               Whether   the    Order    of    Tribunal   needs      any
               interference?
 VGKRJ                                            MACMA 3903 of 2014
Page 4 of 10                                      Dt: 15.03.2023




11.     POINT:-

The averments in the petition filed by the claimants clearly

goes to show that petitioner No.1 is the mother and the petitioner

No.2 is father of the deceased and the deceased was doing

agriculture by taking the land on lease and earning Rs.60,000/- per

year.

12. The further averments in the petition filed by the claimants are

that on 14.08.2010 the deceased and his friend Sirigiri Hanumantha

were proceeding to Singarayakonda Prasannanjaneya Swamy

temple from Karuvali village on their two wheeler bearing No.AP 16

AQ 7467 belonging to the deceased, who was riding the motor cycle

and his friend Hanumantharao was the pillion rider, and when they

crossed railway gate, one tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 21 W

8475 and 8474 came from behind the motor cycle in a rash and

negligent manner and hit the motor cycle, resulting which both of

them were fell down and the tractor and trailer ran over them and

caused multiple injuries and instant death.

13. The first respondent denying the material allegations in the

petition and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the VGKRJ MACMA 3903 of 2014 Page 5 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023

driver of the tractor. The second respondent pleaded in the counter

that the rider of the motor cycle was proceeding without wearing

helmet at the time of accident and there is a contributory negligence

on the part of the deceased.

14. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, the second

petitioner himself examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to

Ex.A16. PW1/ second petitioner, who is the father of the deceased

is not an eye witness to the accident. The petitioners got examined

the eye witness to the accident as PW2. He deposed in his

evidence about occurrence of the accident and about the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of tractor and trailer in question. The

evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 certified copy of First

Information Report and Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet clearly

proves because of the rash and negligent driving of the first

respondent driver i.e., third respondent, the accident was occurred

and in the said accident, the deceased and his friend died on the

spot itself.

15. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that

at the time of accident the deceased was not wearing helmet and VGKRJ MACMA 3903 of 2014 Page 6 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023

proceeding on the two-wheeler. There is no material on record to

show that at the time of accident the deceased was not wearing the

helmet, except taking such pleading in the written statement itself,

the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence. The

learned Tribunal also came to said conclusion and gave the same

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

given by the Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the

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

of tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 21W 8475 and AP 21 W 8474.

The learned Tribunal also came to the said conclusion; therefore,

there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the

Tribunal.

16. In order to prove the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners

examined one Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Junior Assistant, RTO Office,

Ongole as PW4 and he produced Ex.X1 attested copy of RC

particulars of the vehicle of the deceased and Ex.X2 Ledger extract

standing in the name of the deceased and they also examined one

Mandava Rao, who is the managing partner of Venkata Sai

financiers as PW3. As per the evidence of PW3, by availing loan, VGKRJ MACMA 3903 of 2014 Page 7 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023

the deceased purchased one tractor and trailer from his finance

company. As per the evidence of PW4, the deceased having own

tractor and trailer and he is also having driving licence to drive the

tractor and trailer. Their evidence is no way helpful to prove the

quantum of income of the deceased.

17. The Insurance Company got examined one G.Venkateswarlu,

A.O. and legal section in-charge of the Insurance Company as RW1.

The learned counsel for claimants contended that RW1 admitted in

cross examination itself that they are not disputing the income of the

deceased. I have perused the cross examination of RW1 and it

was not elicited from RW1, in cross examination by the learned

counsel for petitioner, that they are not disputing the income of

Rs.20,000/- per month. It was elicited from RW1 in uncertain terms

that they are not disputing the income of the deceased. Therefore, it

cannot be presumed without any independence evidence produced

by the petitioners that the deceased was used to earn Rs.20,000/-

per month. By considering the evidence of PW3 and PW4 and

material on record, the deceased had owned a tractor and trailer

and his monthly income was fixed as Rs.8,000/- per month and his VGKRJ MACMA 3903 of 2014 Page 8 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023

annual income was Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12 = Rs.96,000/-).

Here the deceased was a bachelor, therefore, 50% of his income

has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly,

Rs.96,000/2 = Rs.48,000/-. Here the deceased was aged about 30

years. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased

as per Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport

Corporation and others 1 is '17'. Accordingly, an amount of

Rs.8,16,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 17 = Rs.8,16,000/-) is granted to the

petitioners towards loss of dependency. The petitioners are also

entitled an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, in total, the claimants

are entitled an amount of Rs.8,41,000/- towards compensation.

18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed, by modifying the

order dated 07.04.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.362 of 2010 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District

Judge, Ongole. It is held that the first petitioner is entitled to a

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with proportionate costs in claim

application with interest @9% p.a., and the second petitioner is

2009 ACJ 1298 VGKRJ MACMA 3903 of 2014 Page 9 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023

entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,41,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a.

from the date of petition, till the date of payment. The respondents 1

and 2 are directed to deposit the balance amount within one month

from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are

entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon.

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: 15.03.2023.

Sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 3903 of 2014
Page 10 of 10                              Dt: 15.03.2023






          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3903 of 2014



                          15.03.2023

sj