Garlapati Kutumba Rao, Guntur. ... vs Jr Sudheen Sudheer, Karnataka ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3001 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
                                    AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                        M.A.C.M.A.No.994 of 2009


JUDGEMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Gopala Krishna Rao)

       The appellants are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.219 of

2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Guntur and they filed the appeal for

enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.


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

arrayed in the claim application.


3.      The claimants filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and

140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents

praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.90,60,000/-

towards compensation for the death of their unmarried son

namely Garlapati Narasimha Rao, in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 01/02.10.2004.


4.     Facts

germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly

stated as follows:

The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. On the

intervening night of 01/02.10.2004, the deceased was travelling in

CMR, J & VGKR, J MACMA No.994 of 2009

the Maxi Tempo bearing No.KA 05 AE 3066 from Bangalore to go

to Hasan, on the way, at about 2.00 a.m. when the vehicle

reached near Hombalakoppa Gate, NH-48 BM road, the driver of

the lorry bearing No.MYE 6685 drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner in high speed and dashed the tempo and then

dashed another Maruti car. In that accident, the deceased

G.Narasimharao and one Srinivas sustained grievous injuries and

died on the spot.

5. The third respondent was set ex parte.

6. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 filed written statements and

denied the allegations made by the claim petitioners in the

petition and pleaded that the claim petitioners are not entitled to

any compensation from the respondents 1, 2 and 4.

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

following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.MYE 6685 and tempo traveler No.KA 05 AE 3066?

CMR, J & VGKR, J MACMA No.994 of 2009

2. To what compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf

of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to

A.21 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1

was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

allowed the petition in-part and awarded a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-

towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved

by the impugned award, the appellants filed this appeal for

enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent?

CMR, J & VGKR, J MACMA No.994 of 2009

12. POINT Nos.1 and 2 : The Tribunal on considering the

evidence of PW3, Ex.A1 CC of final report, Ex.A17 CC of FIR,

Ex.A18 and Ex.A21 CC of MVI report, came to a conclusion that

the accident in question is the result of rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.MYE

6685. The said finding is not challenged by the respondents.

Therefore, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said

finding recorded by the Tribunal.

13. The petitioners are none other than the parents of the

deceased, who died in the road accident. The deceased was

bachelor by the date of accident. The respondents are not

denying the relationship and also the fact that the deceased was

working as a software employee in Teja's network India Limited,

Bangalore. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the

claimants relied on the evidence of PW2. Ex.A15 salary

certificate of the deceased was marked through PW1 and it also

confronted to PW2, who is working as a financial controller in

Teja's Network India Limited, Bangalore. As per Ex.A15 salary

certificate of the deceased, the gross monthly salary of the

deceased was Rs.33,750/-. The Tribunal ignored Ex.A15 salary

certificate and committed patent error and arrived to contribution

CMR, J & VGKR, J MACMA No.994 of 2009

of monthly income of the deceased towards dependents at

Rs.10,000/- and committed a grave error. Therefore, the said

finding is liable to be set aside.

14. As per Ex.A15 salary certificate of the deceased, the

deceased was drawing salary of Rs.33,750/- per month as on

01.10.2004 and his last designation was R&D Engineer. The

accident occurred at 2.00 a.m. on 2.10.2004, therefore, Ex.A15 is

relevant to decide the monthly income of the deceased. As per

Ex.A15 after excluding Public Provident Fund, which was

included in his income, the income of the deceased was

Rs.31,950/-. The conveyance allowance of Rs.800/-, telephone

allowance of 1500/- and special allowance of Rs.8,650/- cannot

be included in the income of the deceased and the same cannot

be considered as a pay of the deceased. Therefore, from out of

Rs.31,950/- an amount of Rs.10,950/- has to be deducted,

therefore, monthly income of the deceased is arrived at

Rs.21,000/- and his annual income was Rs.2,52,000/-. As per

the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 25

years by the date of the accident. As per the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company

CMR, J & VGKR, J MACMA No.994 of 2009

Limited Vs. Pranay- Sethi1, 40% of the income has to be added

since the deceased was not a Government employee i.e.,

Rs.2,52,000/- + Rs.1,00,800/- = Rs.3,52,800/-.

15. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of income from

out of the annual income has to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased. As such after deducting 50% of the

income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual

contribution to the family is arrived at Rs.1,76,400 (Rs.3,52,800/- -

Rs.1,76,400/-). The material on record shows that the deceased

was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. So the relevant

multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is '18', as

per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2 and the loss of dependency

comes to Rs.31,75,200/- (Rs.1,76,400/- x 18) and an amount of

Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the

deceased and amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards loss of

estate. In total an amount of Rs.32,45,200/- is awarded towards

total compensation to the claimants.

2017 (16) SCC 680

2009 (4) SCJ 91

CMR, J & VGKR, J MACMA No.994 of 2009

16. The Tribunal awarded interest @7.5% p.a. on the total

compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the date of

payment of amount by R1 and R2. The interest awarded by the

Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. on total compensation is quite reasonable.

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the crime vehicle is

insured with R2 Insurance Company by the first respondent and

the policy is also in force by the date of accident. The driving

licence of driver of offending vehicle is also in force by the date of

accident. No other legal evidence was adduced by the

respondents to establish that the terms of the policy were violated

by the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the

respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay total compensation to the

claim petitioners.

17. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the

compensation granted by the Tribunal. The claimants are entitled

to an amount of, Rs.32,45,200/- towards total compensation with

interest thereon @7.5% p.a. The respondents 1 and 2 are

directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount within

two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the

claimant No.1, father of the deceased is entitled to withdraw an

amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and claimant No.2, mother of the

CMR, J & VGKR, J MACMA No.994 of 2009

deceased is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.22,45,200/-

along with total costs and interest thereon. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 10th May, 2023 sj

CMR, J & VGKR, J MACMA No.994 of 2009

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.994 of 2009

10th May, 2023 sj