Kukatlapalli Janaiah vs Kypa Venkata Subba Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 4890 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                M.A.C.M.A. No. 2083 of 2013

JUDGMENT:-

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Award, dated 26.10.2012,

passed in M.V.O.P. No. 486 of 2011 on the file of the

Chairman,       Motor   Accidents   Claims    Tribunal-cum-V

Additional District Judge [F.T.C.], Ongole, whereby, the

Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,33,500/- towards

total compensation; this instant Appeal is preferred by the

Claimants claiming balance compensation amount, as

prayed before 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 claim petitioners filed the petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, [the 'M.V. Act']

against   the    respondents    claiming     compensation   of

Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Avuku Nasaramma, [the

'deceased'], who is the wife of Claimant No. 1 and mother
                               2



of Claimant Nos.2 to 5 in a motor vehicle accident that took

place on 15.07.2011.


4)     Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal may briefly be

stated as follows: -

i. On 15.07.2011 at about 1.30 P.M., while the

deceased and other were travelling in TATA Magic

bearing registration No. AP07 TV 7149, on the way,

between Batchalakurapadu and Chinarikatla, a lorry

bearing registration No. AP21 TU 3140, came in a

rash and negligent manner dashed the TATA Magic,

resulting the vehicle turned turtle, thereby causing

instantaneous death of the deceased and three

others.

ii. The police, Konakanamitla Police Station registered a

case in crime No.36 of 2011 against the driver of the

lorry for the offence punishable under Sections 337

and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['I.P.C.']. The

1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is

insurer of the lorry, hence, all the respondents are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the

petitioners.

5) The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd

respondent filed the written statement denying the claim of

the Claimants and further pleaded that the offending

vehicle was not insured with the 2nd respondent and since

the TATA Magic was consisting of 10 passengers, the driver

of the vehicle lost control of the steering resulting the

vehicle turned turtle and, as such, there was no negligence

on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and

among other grounds urged, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6) Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

following issue was settled for trial by the Tribunal:

Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP21 TU 2410 by its driver?

7) During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on

behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. No oral or documentary

evidence was adduced by the respondents.

8) At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the

material available on record, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry and

accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded

an amount of Rs.6,33,500/- with proportionate costs and

interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realization. Aggrieved against the passing of less

compensation by the Tribunal, the appellants/petitioners

preferred the present appeal.

9) Heard learned counsels for both the parties and

perused the record.

10) Now, the point for determination is:

i) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court?

ii) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to the remaining balance compensation as prayed for?

11) POINT Nos. (i) & (ii): In order to prove the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle lorry,

the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On appreciation of entire evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident

in question occurred due to rash and negligent on the part

of the driver of the offending lorry, which vehicle is insured

with the 2nd respondent/insurance company.

12) Admittedly, no appeal is filed by the respondents to

challenge the said finding given by the Tribunal. In-fact,

the Tribunal awarded compensation in favor of the

claimants against the respondents and liability is fixed on

both the respondents, but the award passed by the

Tribunal is not challenged by the respondents. No cross-

objections are filed by the respondents. Therefore, I do not

find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by

the Tribunal.

13) Coming to the compensation, the contention of the

petitioners is that the deceased was aged about 43 years

and was a government employee. The same is not disputed

by both sides. The deceased used to work as ANM in a

Medical and Health Department and on considering Ex.A9

[salary certificate] and on considering the evidence of PW2,

the Tribunal come to a conclusion that the salary of the

deceased by the date of accident was Rs.5,200/- per month

i.e. Rs.62,400/- per annum. Since the deceased was in the

age group of between 41 and 45 years, the Tribunal applied

the relevant multiplier of '15'. As seen from the material on

record, the dependents on the deceased are five [05] in

number. The claim application is filed under Section 166 of

the M.V. Act. Therefore, 1/4th amount has to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased. But, the

Tribunal ignoring the decision of Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation1, deducted 1/3rd of the amount

towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the

same has to be modified.

14) As stated supra, the annual income of the deceased

was Rs.62,400/- and the multiplier applicable to the age

group of the deceased is '15', which comes to

Rs.9,36,000/- per annum. As stated above, as per the

decision of the Sarla Varma [cited 1st above], 1/4th has to

be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased,

2009 (4) SCJ 91

since the dependents on the deceased are five [05] in

number. If 1/4th amount is deducted out of Rs.9,36,000/-

an amount of Rs.7,02,000/- [Rs.9,36,000/- -

Rs.2,34,000/-] is available and the same has been awarded

towards loss of dependency. The 1st petitioner is entitled to

an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and

amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate

and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of

the deceased. In total, the claimants are entitled to an

amount of Rs.7,72,000/- towards total compensation.

15) It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is

insured with the 2nd respondent. The policy is in force. In-

fact, the Tribunal fastened the liability on both the

respondents, but no appeal is filed by the respondents

against the said finding. Therefore, the 1st and 2nd

respondents have to pay the enhanced compensation of

Rs.1,38,500/- with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum.

16) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claim

of Rs.6,33,500/- is enhanced to Rs.7,72,000/-. The

claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of

Rs.1,38,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization. The 1st and 2nd

respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced

compensation of Rs.1,38,500/- with interest at 7.5% per

annum before the Tribunal within two months from the

date of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st claimant is

entitled to withdraw Rs.38,500/- with interest thereon and

the 2nd to 5th claimants are entitled to the remaining

balance of enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with

interest thereon equally. The share of 4th and 5th claimants

shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank until

they attain majority. On attaining the majority, the 4th and

5th claimants are entitled to withdraw the same along with

interest therein. No order as to costs.

17) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_____________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 11.10.2023 Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2083 of 2013

11.10.2023

sm