Padarthi Sujatha 5 Others vs Yarlagadda Singaiah 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4685 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                       M.A.C.M.A.No.899 of 2013


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.01.2013 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Ongole, passed in M.V.O.P.No.246 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal

dismissed the claim of claimants, the instant appeal is preferred by

the appellants-claimants claiming the compensation amount.

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 claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards

compensation on account of death of the deceased Padarthi Subba

Rao in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 19.05.2011.

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated

as follows:

                                     2                            VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 899 of 2013

The deceased Padarthi Subba Rao was running hardware and

paint shop under the name and style of Sri Venkateswara Hardware

and paint shop at Kondepi. He was also looking after two other

shops at Singarayakonda and Kandukur under the same name.

From his business, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was

contributing the same for his family, consisting of the petitioners. On

18.05.2011, the deceased went to Kandukur and from there to

Kavali. On 19.05.2011, he started from Kavali to Kondepi on his

motor cycle, when he reached Kalikivai on NH-5 road at about 1.30

p.m. an unknown vehicle which was coming from Kavali, in high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

motor cycle of the deceased, resulting which he fell down, sustained

injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the report given by the

brother of the deceased, Singarayakonda police registered a case

and during the course of investigation, the police traced out the

offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP13U 3699 and arrested the

respondent No.1 i.e., driver of offending vehicle. Respondent No.2

is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending

vehicle.

                                         3                               VGKRJ
                                                             MACMA 899 of 2013




5.     The respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte.                      The third

respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and

contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and

the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the

claimants.

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

following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP13U 3699 on 19.05.2011 at about 13.30 hours on NH-5 road Singarayakonda village?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii. Whether the age and income of the deceased are correct?

iv. To what relief?

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

of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8

were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3, RW1 was

examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

                                      4                            VGKRJ
                                                       MACMA 899 of 2013

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

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

has given a finding that the claimants failed to prove the rash and

negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle,

and the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the

same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the

compensation amount.

9. Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the

record.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

     1. Whether    the   Order     of    Tribunal   needs     any
       interference?

2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1

to PW3. Ex.A1 copy of First Information Report goes to show that

on knowing the accident, the brother of the deceased proceeded to 5 VGKRJ MACMA 899 of 2013

the scene of offence, witnessed the dead body of the deceased with

head injury and other injuries and noticed the dead body of his

brother by the side of the divider of NH-5 road and lodged a report

to the police against the driver of the unknown vehicle and First

Information Report was registered on the same day. The evidence

of PW3 goes to show that he is the owner of the offending vehicle

and he surrendered the driver of the offending vehicle before the

police. In cross-examination, the evidence of PW3 is not at all

disturbed the material aspects of the case. His evidence goes to

show that he does not know the claimants and they are the third

parties. Therefore, his evidence is trustworthy. Ex.A7 copy of

charge sheet goes to show that the Sub Inspector of Police,

Singarayakonda police station conducted investigation in this case

and filed a charge sheet before the criminal court by fixing the

liability on the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel

for Insurance Company would submit that there was a delay of 15

days in examining the offending vehicle by the Motor Vehicle

Inspector. To discharge their burden, the claimants relied on the

evidence of PW1 to PW3. No doubt, PW1 and PW2 are not an eye

witnesses to the accident. PW3 is the owner of the offending 6 VGKRJ MACMA 899 of 2013

vehicle. PW3 himself produced the driver of the offending vehicle

before the concerned police. PW2 is none other than the brother of

the deceased. His evidence goes to show that on knowing the

accident immediately he rushed to the scene of offence and noticed

the dead body of his brother by the side of the divider of NH-5 road.

The First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the

unknown vehicle, since it is a hit and run case. Ex.A1 coupled with

Ex.A7 and other oral evidence on record clearly proves that the Sub

Inspector of Police of Singarayakonda police station conducted

investigation and fixed the liability on the driver of the offending

vehicle and laid a charge sheet against the driver of the offending

vehicle before the Criminal Court. To disprove the Ex.A7 charge

sheet filed by the police, the third respondent Insurance company

did not choose to examine the investigating officer, who investigated

the said case. Therefore, the claimants discharged their burden to

prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle. To rebut the said evidence, the Motor Vehicle Inspector,

who inspected the vehicle is not examined by the Insurance

Company. The Tribunal discarded the entire evidence on record

and dismissed the claim application. Therefore, the said finding of 7 VGKRJ MACMA 899 of 2013

the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The material on record reveals

that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in which the deceased

died on the spot itself due to injuries.

12. Coming to the compensation, the case of the claimants is that

the occupation of the deceased is hardware business and the

deceased used to run paint shop at Kondepi and used to earn

Rs.10,000/- per month. The accident was occurred in the year 2011.

In those days an ordinary coolie can easily earn an amount of

Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased is

arrived at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum. The

dependents on the deceased are 6 in number. As per the decision

of Sarla Verma's case, 1/4th income has to be deducted towards

personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th income is deducted, the

net income available to the dependents on the deceased is

Rs.27,000/- (36,000 - 9,000) per annum. Since the deceased was

aged about 35 years, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age

group of the deceased is 16. Accordingly, an amount of

Rs.4,32,000/- (27,000 x 16) is awarded to the claimants towards 8 VGKRJ MACMA 899 of 2013

loss of dependency. In addition to the above compensation, an

amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the first petitioner towards loss

of consortium. An amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards

funeral expenses of the deceased and an amount of Rs.15,000/- is

awarded towards loss of estate. Therefore, the claimants/appellants

are entitled an amount of Rs.5,02,000/- towards total compensation.

Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set

aside.

13. It is not in dispute by the learned counsel for the third

respondent that the offending vehicle is insured with third

respondent Insurance Company under valid policy and there are no

violations in Ex.B1 policy and the policy is in force and the driver of

the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence by the date of

accident. Since there are no violations in the policy, third

respondent Insurance Company has to indemnify the second

respondent / owner of the offending vehicle.

14. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the order dated

03.01.2013 passed in MVOP No.246/2011 on the file of the Motor 9 VGKRJ MACMA 899 of 2013

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole is

set aside and the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.5,02,000/-

towards total compensation with interest @6% p.a. from the date of

petition, till the date of realization. The respondent No.3 is directed

to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.5,02,000/- with interest

as ordered above, before the Tribunal within two months from the

date of this judgment. The first petitioner is entitled an amount of

Rs.1,02,000/- along with accrued interest thereon, the petitioners 2

to 4 are entitled an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with

accrued interest thereon, the petitioners 5 and 6 are entitled an

amount of Rs.50,000/- each along with accrued interest thereon.

After depositing the compensation amount along with accrued

interest, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their share of

compensation amount 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:    .10.2023.
sj
                           10                        VGKRJ
                                         MACMA 899 of 2013






     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




              M.A.C.M.A.No.899 of 2013



                      .10.2023

sj