The Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Mamilla Reddemma Sandhya 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3008 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.4116 of 2014

JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent/Insurance

Company in M.V.O.P.No.665 of 2009 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kadapa

and it filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of

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 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards

compensation for the death of the deceased M.Sudhakar Reddy,

in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.07.2009.

4. The facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly

stated as follows:

The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, second

petitioner is the mother of the deceased and third petitioner is the

younger brother of the deceased. On 01.07.2009 in the evening

hours, the deceased Sudhakar Reddy and his friend N.Chinnaiah

were going to Edigapalli village on motor cycle, on their personal

VGKR, J MACMA No.4116 of 2014

work, at about 6.30 p.m. when they reached near

Chinnanagireddypalli kalava on Peddaputha-Paidikalva main

road, the driver of tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 04W 4529

and AP04W 4530 came in opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of

deceased, resulting which, the rider of motor cycle Sudhakar

Reddy and the pillion rider N.Chennaiah fell down from the motor

cycle and sustained fatal injuries, then the tractor ran over on the

head of Sudhakar Reddy, due to which, he died on the spot.

5. The first respondent was set ex parte.

6. The second respondent filed counter and denied the

allegations made by the claim petitioners in the petition and

pleaded that the claim petitioners are not entitled any

compensation from the second respondent.

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

following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicles bearing No.AP 04W 4529 and 4530 whether the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally are liable to answer the claim?

VGKR, J MACMA No.4116 of 2014

2. If so, what is the quantum of compensation that the petitioners are entitled to and who are liable to pay the compensation?

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.11 were marked. On behalf of respondents R.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 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.19,69,996/-

towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved

by the impugned award, the Appellant/ Insurance Company filed

the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the

Tribunal.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

VGKR, J MACMA No.4116 of 2014

POINT :

On considering the evidence of PW2, who is the eye

witness to the alleged accident and on considering the Ex.A1

certified copy of FIR and Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet and

on appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal came to conclusion that

the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailer bearing

Nos.AP 04W 4529 and 4530. The material on record clearly

goes to show that the accident was occurred due to sole

negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal

also came to the said conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

12. Coming to the compensation granted by the Tribunal, on

considering Ex.A10 salary certificate of the deceased, the

Tribunal arrived monthly income of the deceased was Rs.9,549/-

per month. On considering Ex.A2 certified copy of inquest report

and Ex.A3 certified copy of post mortem certificate and Ex.A11

copy of driving licence of deceased, the Tribunal came to

conclusion that the deceased was aged about 28 years by the

date of accident and 50% of the salary was added to the said

amount, since the deceased was a permanent employee and the

VGKR, J MACMA No.4116 of 2014

total loss of the dependents is estimated by the Tribunal at

Rs.1,71,882/- per annum. The dependents of the deceased are

wife, mother and younger brother of the deceased and 1/3rd

amount was deducted towards personal expenses and the loss of

the dependency estimated by the Tribunal was Rs.1,14,588/- and

the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased was

applied as '17' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1 and the loss

of dependency came to Rs.19,47,996/- (Rs.1,14,588/- x 17). The

Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of

consortium to the first petitioner and Rs.2,000/- was awarded

towards funeral expenses of the deceased and Rs.10,000/- was

awarded towards loss of estate. Accordingly, by giving cogent

reasons, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the petitioners are

entitled an amount of Rs.19,69,996 towards total compensation. I

do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding giving by

the Tribunal.

13. The material on record clearly goes to show that the crime

vehicle was insured with second respondent/ Insurance company

and the policy is also in force by the date of accident and the

2009 (4) SCJ 91

VGKR, J MACMA No.4116 of 2014

driver of the offending vehicle also having valid driving licence by

the date of accident. No other legal evidence was adduced by

the respondents to establish that the terms of policy were violated

by the owner of the offending vehicle. On assigning cogent

reasons, the Tribunal came to conclusion that both the

respondents are liable to pay the total compensation to the

claimants. So, the impugned award in granting total

compensation of Rs.19,69,996/- against the respondents 1 and 2

is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference

in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and is

liable to be dismissed.

14. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

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

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

VGKR, J MACMA No.4116 of 2014

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.4116 of 2014

10th May, 2023 sj