Gantreti Thotayya And 4 Others vs Pragada Surya Rao And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4924 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

               M.A.C.M.A. No. 1054 of 2012

JUDGMENT:-

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Award, dated 19.06.2008,

passed in M.O.P. No. 764 of 2005 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District

Judge), Vizianagaram, whereby, the Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.1,89,000/- to the Claimants towards

compensation payable by 1st and 2nd respondents and

exonerating the 3rd respondent [owner of the trailer] and 4th

respondent [insurance company]; 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

163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [the 'M.V. Act'], and

Rule 455 of the M.V. Rules [the 'Rules'], against the

respondents claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for
                                  2



the    death   of     one   Gantreti   Appala   Guruvulu,    [the

'deceased'], in a motor vehicle accident that took place on

24.02.2005.


4)     Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal may briefly be

stated as follows: -

i. On 24.02.2005 at about 9.00 A.M., the deceased

along with others boarded the tractor bearing

registration No. AP35 T 0534 and trailer bearing

registration Nos. AP30 T 8723 and after loading the

sand at Lakapeta Village, Champavathi River bed, the

1st respondent driver drove the said tractor in a rash

and negligent manner at high speed, resulting the

deceased fell down from the tractor and the wheels of

the trailer ran over him, causing the death of the

deceased.

ii. The Station House Officer, Denkada Police Station,

registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 20005 against

the driver of the tractor for the offence punishable

under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860

['I.P.C.']. The 1st respondent is the owner-cum-driver

of the tractor bearing registration No. AP35 T 0534,

the 2nd respondent is insurer of the said tractor, the

3rd respondent is the owner of the trailer bearing

registration No. AP30 T 8723 and the 4th respondent

is insurer of the said trailer. Hence, all the

respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the petitioners.

5) The 1st and 3rd respondents remained ex parte. The

2nd and 4th respondents individually filed their counter

denying the manner of accident.

i. The 2nd respondent/the New Indian Insurance

Company Limited pleaded that, the deceased was not

engaged as a labourer for loading and unloading the

sand in the tractor and that he was only a passenger.

It is further pleaded that, it requires to be proved

whether the tractor involved in the accident was

insured with the 2nd respondent, by the date of

accident, and that the person driving the tractor was

having valid and subsisting driving license and,

among other grounds urged, the 2nd respondent

submitted that it is not liable to pay any

compensation to the petitioners.

ii. On the other hand, the 4th respondent/the Oriental

Insurance Company Limited pleaded that, the

accident was caused by the 1st respondent tractor

driver, whom the 3rd respondent did not employ and,

as such, no vicarious liability can be fastened on the

4th respondent. Hence, no liability arises on the 4th

respondent and prayed to dismiss the petition

exonerating the liability on the 4th respondent.

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

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

(i) Whether the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the pleaded motor vehicle accident involving the motor vehicle tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP30 T 0534 and AP30 T 8723 while it was in use in public place?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

(iii) To what relief?

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

behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of the

Respondents, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.

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 tractor and

trailer and accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part

and awarded an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- with

proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization directing the 1st

and 2nd respondents to jointly pay the compensation and

exonerated the 3rd and 4th respondents paying the

compensation. Aggrieved against the order passed by the

Tribunal, the appellants/petitioners preferred the present

appeal for claiming remaining balance of compensation

amount.

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 enhanced compensation, as prayed for?

11) POINT Nos. (i) & (ii): The case of the claimants is

that, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the

deceased and petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are the children of the

petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. On 24.02.2005, in the morning,

the deceased boarded the tractor bearing registration

No.AP35 T 0534 and trailer bearing registration No.AP30 T

8723 and the 4th respondent is the insurer of the said

trailer. On the date of accident, the deceased and other

labourers boarded the tractor for loading sand in the trailer

and after loading the sand and on return journey, due to

rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the 1st

respondent, the deceased who sat on the front right mud-

guard, fell down from the tractor and the wheels of the

trailer ran over the deceased right thigh and caused

instantaneous death of the deceased.

12) No doubt, PW1 is not an eye witness to the incident.

But, PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. On considering

the evidence of PW1 and PW2, coupled with Ex.A1 - true

copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A2 - true copy of charge-sheet,

the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident in

question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending tractor, which tractor is insured with

the 2nd respondent/insurance company. Moreover, the

claim application is filed under Section 163(A) of the M.V.

Act, as such, the question of deciding any rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle tractor is not at all

required.

13) The material on record clearly reveals that the

deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle tractor-

cum-trailer as a loading and unloading coolie. Mere prove

of involvement of vehicle in an accident is sufficient in a

claim application under Section 163(A) of M.V. Act and

same is proved by the claimants.

14) Coming to the compensation, admittedly the

deceased was a bachelor, aged about 20 years, at the time

of accident. The contention of the appellants is that, the

deceased used to earn Rs.100/- per day i.e., Rs.3,000/-

per month. But no evidence was let-out by the appellants

to prove the income of the deceased. The accident in

question occurred in the year 2005. In those days, a

labourer can easily earn Rs.75/- to Rs.100/- per day.

Therefore, on considering the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, the monthly income of the

deceased was arrived at Rs.2,500/- per month and his

annual income is arrived at Rs.30,000/-. Since, the

deceased was bachelor, 50% of the income has to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If the

50% is deducted, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is available to

the dependents. As stated supra, the deceased was aged

about 20 years as on the date of accident. So, the relevant

multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is

"17". Since, the claim application is filed under Section

163(A) of the M.V. Act, the loss of dependency is arrived at

Rs.2,55,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 17). In addition to the above,

the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards

funeral expenses of the deceased. In total, the claimants

are entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,57,000/-. Consequently,

the claim of an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- awarded by

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,57,000/-.

15) On appreciation of the entire evidence on record and

on considering Ex.B1 - policy, the Tribunal fastened the

liability on the 1st and 2nd respondents. No appeal or cross-

objections are filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents against

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

have to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of

Rs.68,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

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

of Rs.1,89,000/- awarded by Tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.2,57,000/-. The claimants are entitled to enhanced

compensation of Rs.68,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

annum. The 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to deposit

the enhanced compensation of Rs.68,000/- with interest at

7.5% per annum, as ordered above, within two months

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

and 2nd 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: 12.10.2023 Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1054 of 2012

.10.2023

sm