Kodi Suryanarayana 3 Others vs Udha Singh 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1496 AP

                                               MACMA.NO.1013 of 2013

                                                           Page 1 of 8



     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO


                M.A.C.M.A.No.1013 of 2013


JUDGMENT:

The appellants are claimants in M.V.O.P.No.830 of 2010

on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

I Addl. District Judge, at Vizianagaram, and the respondents

herein are the respondents in the said case.

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

arrayed in the claim application.

3. The Claimants are filed a Claim Petition under section

166 of MV Act, for claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-

for the death of the deceased Kodi Yathish Kumar, in a Motor

Vehicle accident that occurred on 23.02.2010 at 03:45 P.M.

4. The case of the petitioners are as follows:

On 23.02.2010 afternoon one Jamisetty Venkata

Ramana and the deceased Kodi Yathish Kumar, Special party MACMA.NO.1013 of 2013

R.S.I., Visakhapatnam (Rarual) were going to Tagarapuvalasa

on pulsar bike bearing No. AP T/R AP 31 V 8046 in a slow

manner, when they reached near NH5, opposite Surya Nursing

home, Tagarapuvalasa at about 03:45 p.m., the driver of the

lorry i.e., 1st respondent drove the lorry bearing No.CG17 H

1604 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without

blowing horn, and dashed the bike from behind, as a result,

the deceased and Jamisetty Venkata Ramana fell on the road

and sustained injuries.

5. The 1st and 2nd respondents are remained ex parte.

6. The 3rd respondent filed counter contending that the

petitioners are put to strict proof of the age and income of the

deceased and the manner of accident and also contended that

the driver of the lorry is not having a valid and effective driving

license as such this respondent is not liable to pay

compensation to the petitioners, the compensation claimed is

highly excessive.

MACMA.NO.1013 of 2013

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

following issues:

1) Whether the accident and death of the

deceased viz. Kodi Yathish kumar is due to

the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle

(lorry) bearing No.CG 17 H 1604 by its driver?

2) What is the correct age and income of the

deceased as on the date of accident?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any

compensation and, if so at what quantum and

from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. The petitioner No.1 himself was examined as PW1 and

got examined PW2 and PW3 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.

on behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1

and Ex.B2 were marked.

MACMA.NO.1013 of 2013

9. Now, the point for consideration are:

1) Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any

interference?

2) Whether the appellants are entitled enhancement of

claim as prayed for?

POINT NO. 1 & 2:

10. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st

petitioner examined himself as PW1 and he is not an eye

witness to the accident, PW2 who is the injured cum eye

witness, he deposed that the 1st respondent drove the lorry

bearing No. CG 17 H 1604 in a rash and negligent manner with

high speed and dashed the bike resulting the death of the

deceased, the evidence of PW2 clearly goes to show about the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry 1st

respondent herein.

11. Apart from the evidence of PW2 the claimant also relied

on Ex.A1 attested copy of F.I.R, Ex.A4 attested copy of charge MACMA.NO.1013 of 2013

sheet. The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 and A4 clearly

proves about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

lorry i.e. 1st respondent and the Trial Court also gave the said

finding, no appeal is filed by the respondents, therefore, there

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

Tribunal.

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

petitioners examined mother of the deceased as PW1 1 st

petitioner is the mother of the deceased and 2nd petitioner is

the father of the deceased, and 3rd and 4th petitioners are the

brothers of the deceased and the deceased was unmarried. The

Trial Court gave a finding that the deceased was a bachelor.

PW3 who is working as Senior Assistant of the District Police,

Visakhapatnam deposed in his evidence that, the deceased

used to draw salary of Rs.15,670/-, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 also

supports the same and the said finding and the Tribunal also

on considering the Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 and on considering the

Ex.A7 and Ex.A8, net income of the deceased is fixed for MACMA.NO.1013 of 2013

Rs.15.670/-. No appeal is filed against the said finding by the

respondents. Herein the present case the deceased was a

bachelor, the learned Tribunal has taken the age of the mother

of the deceased for deciding the quantum of compensation, but

failed to take the age of the deceased. The said finding given by

the learned Tribunal is not at all correct, herein the as per the

case of the petitioners and as per the evidence on record the

deceased was aged about 30 years by the time of accident. As

per decision of Smt. Sarala Varma and others vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another 1, the multiplier is

applicable to the age group of the deceased is '17'. Therefore,

an amount of Rs.15,670/-x12= Rs.1,88,040/- from out of

which 10% has to be deducted towards income tax, the 10%

on income of Rs.18,804/- deducted from out of Rs.1,88,040/-.

The net income available is Rs.1,69,236/-. Here the deceased

was a bachelor, therefore, 50% has to be deducted towards

personnel living expenses an amount of Rs.84,618/- has to be

2009 (4) SCJ 91 MACMA.NO.1013 of 2013

deducted from out of Rs.1,69,236/-(Rs.1,69,236-Rs.84,618/-

=Rs.84,618/-) Rs.84,618/-x17=Rs.14,38,506/-, and

Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate, therefore, the

claimants are entitled total compensation of Rs.14,48,506/-,

and the claim is enhanced from Rs.10,46,220/- to

Rs.14,48,506/-. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are entitled the

enhanced compensation amount equally with interest of 7.5%

P.A.

13. In the result appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the

compensation from an amount Rs.10,46,220/- to

Rs.14,48,506/-. With interest of 7.5% P.A. as awarded by the

Tribunal against the respondents. Out of the enhanced

compensation amount with accrued interest, the 1st and 2nd

petitioners are entitled to withdraw the equal share on the

enhanced compensation amount with interest, the

respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the enhanced

compensation within one (1) month from the date of the

judgment.

MACMA.NO.1013 of 2013

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal

shall stand closed.

______________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated:17.03.2023.

KNN