National Insurance Company Ltd., vs Dandu Lakshumma 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4916 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.737 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned award and order passed in

M.V.O.P.No.421 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Vehicles

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge

(Fast Track Court), Kadapa at Rajampet, whereby the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.2,94,000/- towards total

compensation to the claimants against 1st and 3rd respondents,

this instant appeal is preferred by 3rd respondent/National

Insurance Company Limited questioning the legal validity of

the award passed 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 aforesaid M.V.O.P.No.421 of 2010 was filed by the

claimants, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation for the death of Dandu Naraiah in a

motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.05.2009. 1st claimant is

the wife and 2nd to 4th claimants are the children of the

deceased.

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

On 21.05.2009, the deceased along with his wife and

relative came to Rajampet, to purchase wood for the new

house. They purchased the wood logs. They came to bus

stand and boarded the RTC bus bearing No.AP 04W 2358 and

loaded the wooden logs on the top of the bus. As there were

145 passengers in the RTC bus, the deceased and some other

passengers went to the roof of the bus. At about 1:00 p.m.,

when the bus reached near Konduru Harijana Wada, the driver

of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high

speed. A branch of tree penetrated into the neck of the

deceased, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital,

Rajampet. After that he was referred to the SVRR General

Hospital, Tirupathi from there he was shifted to SVIMS

Hospital, Tirupathi. The doctors at SVIMS Hospital also

advised to take the deceased to Rayaveilore Hospital. Due to

financial problems of the deceased, he was shifted to Lotus

Hospital, Tirupathi where he succumbed while undergoing

treatment. A case in Crime No.40 of 2009 was registered

against the driver of the offending vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C. hired

bus and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was

laid against the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. hired bus. 1st

respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is A.P.S.R.T.C.,

and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle bus

bearing No.AP 04W 2358.

5. 1st respondent/owner of A.P.S.R.T.C., hired bus filed a

counter denying the claim of the claimants.

6. 2nd respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C., filed a counter by denying

the claim of the claimants.

7. 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter by

denying the claim of the claimants and pleaded that since the

deceased was travelled on the top of the bus, the claimants

are not entitled any compensation and the Insurance Company

is not liable to pay compensation.

8. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased died due to the rash and

negligent act of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C hired bus bearing

No.AP 04W 2358?

2. Whether the deceased is entitled for compensation

if so from which of the respondents and for what amount?

3. To what relief?

9. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claim

petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and got marked

Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were

examined.

10. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of the

entire evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.2,94,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the

claimants towards total compensation against 1st and 3rd

respondents. Aggrieved thereby, 3rd respondent/National

Insurance Company Limited filed this instant appeal

questioning the legal validity of the award passed by the

Tribunal.

11. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Paladugu, learned counsel for

the appellant/National Insurance Company Limited through

virtual hearing. Sri K.Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel

for A.P.S.R.T.C./6th respondent is present.

12. Now, the point for determination is:

1) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs

any interference? To what extent?

POINT:

13. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C. hire bus, the

petitioners relied on the evidence of P.W.1, no doubt P.W.1 is

not an eye witness to the accident. The claimants also relied

on Ex.A1-Certified Copy of the First Information Report and

Ex.A4-Certified Copy of the Charge Sheet. Exs.A1 and A4

clearly goes to show that the accident in question occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C. hire bus bearing No.AP 04W 2358. The

material on record clearly reveals that the deceased opted to

travel on the top of the bus, which is not permissible under law.

Therefore, undoubtedly there was a contributory negligence on

the part of the deceased to opt to travel on the top of the bus,

resulting the death of the deceased in an accident which was

caused by A.P.S.R.T.C. hired bus. Therefore, I am of the

considered view that there was a contributory negligence of

50% on the part of the deceased in causing the death of the

deceased in an accident.

14. Coming to the compensation, the case of the claimants

is that deceased used to earn Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The

Tribunal, by assailing reasons came to conclusion that the

monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month

i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum. On considering the material on

record, since the dependents on the deceased are four in

number, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards

personal expenses of the deceased. But the Tribunal

deducted 1/3rd of the income instead of 1/4th towards personal

expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th is deducted, then the net

income available to the dependents on the deceased is

Rs.27,000/-. The Tribunal applied the relevant multiplier of

'11', which is applicable to the age group of the deceased.

Therefore, the claimants are entitled an amount of

Rs.2,97,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation

charges, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges

and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses of the

deceased. In total, an amount of Rs.3,27,000/- is awarded

towards total compensation. As stated supra, there was a

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

Therefore, the claimants are entitled total compensation of

Rs.1,63,500/-.

15. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle A.P.S.R.T.C.

hire bus is owned by 1st respondent in the claim application

and insured with appellant/Insurance Company and the policy

is in force.

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

amount of Rs.2,94,000/- granted by the Tribunal is reduced to

Rs.1,63,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 1st

and 3rd respondents in the claim application i.e., insured and

the insurer are directed to deposit the remaining balance

amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum before the Tribunal within two months from the date of

this Judgment. On such deposit, claimants are entitled to

withdraw the same along with interest thereon. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Dt.12.10.2023 ANI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.737 of 2014

Dt.12.10.2023

ANI