Sanapala Narayanamma 3 Ors vs P.Venugopal Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 4681 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.No. 3721 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The appellants are petitioners and the respondents are

respondents in M.V.O.P.No.597 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-

Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. The appellants filed the

instant appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will

be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules,

1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an

amount of Rs.26,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of

Sanapala Sreeram Murthy, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of

VGKR,J MACMA No.3721 of 2012

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of the 4th petitioner, in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 08.08.2010.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

The deceased was working as a Village Revenue Officer and

getting salary of Rs.14,142/- per month. On 08.08.2010 he was

going on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 30G 2415 at

about 6.30 a.m., at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.AP

16TV 6327 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

without blowing horn came and dashed the motor cycle of the

deceased from backside and ran over him resulting in his

instantaneous death. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd

respondent is insurer of the offending lorry, hence, both the

respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to

the petitioners.

5. The respondents filed individual written statements by denying

the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

It is pleaded that the accident took place only due to the negligence

VGKR,J MACMA No.3721 of 2012

of the deceased in riding his motor cycle with high speed without

observing the road traffic and the claim of the petitioners is very

excessive.

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

following issues for trial:

1. Whether the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 16TV 6327 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and responsible for the accident?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, as prayed for? If so, to how much amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. 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.6 and

Ex.X.1were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral

evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked.

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

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

VGKR,J MACMA No.3721 of 2012

came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, and accordingly,

allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.13,53,746/-

towards compensation to petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 with

proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition

till the date of payment against both the respondents and dismissed

the claim of the 2nd petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned

award, the petitioners filed the appeal for enhancement of the

compensation.

9. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned counsel for the

appellants/petitioners, and Sri N. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel

for the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, and perused the record.

10. The main ground urged by the appellants/petitioners is that the

Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd from out of the monthly income

towards personal exepenses of the deceased, instead of 1/4th.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

VGKR,J MACMA No.3721 of 2012

1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

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

12. POINT Nos.1 and 2: On considering the evidence of P.W.2,

who is an eye witness to the accident, and Ex.A.1-certified copy of

first information report and Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet, the

Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and in

the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. No appeal was

filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is

no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. The deceased was an employee and his net income was

arrived by the Tribunal at Rs.14,142/- which was rounded of to

Rs.14,140/-. As per the evidence of P.W.3, the deceased was aged

49 years at the time of accident. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

VGKR,J MACMA No.3721 of 2012

Sethi1, 30% from out of monthly income has to be added towards

future prospects, since the deceased was below the age group of 50

years and accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is

arrived at Rs.18,382/- (Rs.14,140/- + Rs.4,242/-). The dependents

on the deceased are four in number. As per the judgment of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation 2 , 1/4th from out of the annual income has to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Having

deducted as such, the monthly contribution to the family members of

the deceased is arrived at Rs.13,787/- (Rs.18,382/- - Rs.4,595/-) i.e.,

Rs.1,65,444/- per annum. After deducting 10% from out of the

annual contribution towards income tax, the net annual contribution

would come to Rs.1,48,900/- (Rs.1,65,444/- - Rs.16,544/-). As

stated supra, the deceased was aged about 49 years as on the date

of accident and the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of

the deceased is "13" as per Sarla Varma case and the loss of

2017 (16) SCC 680

2009 (4) SCJ 91

VGKR,J MACMA No.3721 of 2012

dependency is arrived at Rs.19,35,700/- (Rs.1,48,900/- x multiplier

„13‟). The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.13,38,246/- towards

loss of dependency, therefore, the same is enhanced to

Rs.19,35,700/-. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is

awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and

Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. I do not find

any infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal for awarding

the quantum of compensation under these two heads. In total, a

sum of Rs.19,50,700/- is awarded towards compensation to the

petitioners.

14. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in respect of the 2nd

petitioner on the ground that he got employment on compensatory

grounds due to untimely death of the deceased. In Reliance

General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manjula Kabiraj Das (First Appeal

No.180 of 2023 dated 17.03.2023), the High Court of Judicature at

Bomaby held that giving service to the wife of deceased in place of

her deceased-husband on compassionate basis, cannot be a

ground to deny her compensation, which she is entitled under the

VGKR,J MACMA No.3721 of 2012

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the light of the said

judgment, the 2nd petitioner is entitled for compensation and the

above finding given by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

15. It is not in dispute that the offending lorry of the 1st respondent

was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company under

Ex.B.1 policy and the policy was in force as on the date of accident.

The Tribunal in its order rightly held that though it is contended by

the 2nd respondent/Insurance company that the driver of the 1st

respondent was not having valid driving licence at the time of

accident, no oral or documentary evidence was let in to establish

their contention, and accordingly, fastened the liability on both the

respondents. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding

given by the Tribunal.

16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the

compensation of Rs.13,53,746/- awarded by the Tribunal to

Rs.19,50,700/-. The petitioners are entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs.5,96,954/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the

VGKR,J MACMA No.3721 of 2012

date of petition till the date of payment by the respondents. Out of

enhanced compensation of Rs.5,96,954/-, the 1st petitioner is

entitled to Rs.2,96,954/- with interest thereon and petitioner Nos.2 to

4 are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each with interest thereon. The

respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation

amount of Rs.5,96,954/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. before the

Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such

deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their respective

shares of enhanced compensation amount along with accrued

interest thereon. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J th 5 October, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.3721 of 2012

HON ‟BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 3721 of 2012

5thOctober, 2023 cbs