Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The National Insurance Co Ltd vs Sirigiri Sulochana 3 Others on 15 March, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1225 of 2015
JUDGEMENT:
The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.361 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.15,00,000/- towards
compensation on account of death of deceased Sirigiri Hanumantha
Rao in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 14.08.2010.
4. The case of the claimants is that on 14.08.2010, the deceased
Sirigiri Hanumantharao and his friend Nannapaneni Krishna were
proceeding to Singarayakonda Prasannanjaneya Swamy temple
from Karuvali village on their two wheeler bearing No.AP 16 AQ
VGKRJ MACMA 1225 of 2015
Page 2 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023
7467 belonging to N.Krishna, who was riding the motor cycle and
the deceased 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.15,00,000/- towards compensation for the
death of Hanumantha Rao.
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 Sirigiri Hanumantha Rao died,
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the tractor and trailor bearing Nos.AP 21 W 8475
and AP 21 W 8474 by third respondent as alleged
in the petition?
VGKRJ MACMA 1225 of 2015
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 PW3 were examined and
Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and Ex.X1 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.15,00,000/- 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 1225 of 2015
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 wife and the petitioner No.2
is mother of the deceased and the deceased had an auto and
maintaining the same and getting Rs.200/- per day and he was also
having 50% share in V.S.Enterprises and getting Rs.10,000/- per
month accordingly he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
12. The further averments in the petition filed by the claimants are
that on 14.08.2010 the deceased and his friend N.Krishna were
proceeding to Singarayakonda Prasannanjaneya Swamy temple
from Karuvali village on their two wheeler bearing No.AP 16 AQ
7467 belonging to his friend Krishna, who was riding the motor cycle
and the deceased 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.
VGKRJ MACMA 1225 of 2015
Page 5 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023
13. The first respondent denying the material allegations in the
petition and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the
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 first petitioner
herself examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. PW1/
first petitioner, who is the wife 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.
VGKRJ MACMA 1225 of 2015
Page 6 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023
15. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that
at the time of accident the deceased was not wearing helmet and
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 making 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 PW3 and he produced Ex.X1 R.C. extract of the auto
bearing No.AP 27 W 5440 standing in the name of the deceased.
As per the evidence of PW3, the deceased was having own Auto.
VGKRJ MACMA 1225 of 2015
Page 7 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023
His 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the monthly income of the deceased was fixed as Rs.8,000/- per
month and his annual income was Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12 =
Rs.96,000/-). As per the Post Mortem report and Inquest report, the
deceased was aged about 36 years. Here the dependents are two
in number, hence 1/3 of income has to be deduced from the annual
VGKRJ MACMA 1225 of 2015
Page 8 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.
Accordingly, 1/3 income of the deceased is Rs.96,000/3 =
Rs.32,000/-, accordingly, Rs.96,000- Rs.32,000/- = Rs.64,000/-.
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 '15'. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.9,60,000/-
(Rs.64,000/- x 15 = Rs.9,60,000/-) 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/- is
awarded to first petitioner towards loss of estate. Therefore, in total,
the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.9,85,000/- towards
compensation.
18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed, by modifying the
order dated 07.04.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.361 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.7,00,000/- with proportionate costs in claim
application and with interest @9% p.a., and the second petitioner is
2009 ACJ 1298
VGKRJ MACMA 1225 of 2015
Page 9 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023
entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- 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 1225 of 2015
Page 10 of 10 Dt: 15.03.2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1225 of 2015
15.03.2023
sj
