Govindu Sowbhagya Ranga Lakshmi ... vs Sri Jaya Rami Reddy And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4955 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 896 of 2012

JUDGMENT: -

1)    Aggrieved by the impugned Decree and Award, dated

26.10.2007, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 390 of 2006 on the file

of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

District   Judge,    Ongole,   whereby,    the   claim    of

Rs.4,16,000/- was awarded to the Claimants towards

compensation, this Appeal is preferred by the Claimants

claiming remaining balance compensation amount, as

prayed in the claim application.


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.6,00,000/- for the death of one G. Venkata Lakshmi

Narayana [the 'deceased'], in a motor vehicle accident that

took place on 10.08.2006.
                               2


4)    Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal may briefly be

stated as follows: -

i. On 10.08.2006, the deceased along with his wife and

other relatives were going to Tirumala in a Maruthi

Van bearing registration No. AP02 E 4338 from

Markapur and when they reached near KM Stone

12/9 between Renigunta-Koduru main road, the

driver of the Maruthi van drove the vehicle in a rash

and negligent manner and unable to negotiate the

oncoming vehicle, the vehicle went extreme left side

of the road and went beyond the road and hit the

tree, resulting of which the inmates of the van

sustained injuries and the deceased succumbed to

injures. A case in Crime No. 107 of 2006 was

registered by the Police, Reinugnta Police Station, for

the offence punishable under Sections 304A and 337

of the Indian Penal Code.

5) No counter is filed by 1st respondent. The 2nd and 3rd

respondents filed written statement denying the material

averments mentioned in the claim application.

6) The 2nd respondent pleaded that there is no

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle

van and she is not liable to pay any compensation. The 3rd

respondent/insurance company filed the written statement

with a plea that there is no privity of contract between the

parties, since the original policy was issued to 1st

respondent under 'private car package policy' and the same

was used as 'taxi' and, therefore, the insurance company is

not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and

prays to dismiss the petition.

7) Based on the above pleadings, the following issues

were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Van bearing No. AP02 E 4338 of R2?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

8) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the

petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined and Ex.B1 is marked.

9) At the culmination of the enquiry and on appreciation

of the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal

awarded compensation of Rs.4,16,000/- towards total

compensation to all the claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the

claimants preferred this instant appeal for claiming

remaining balance of compensation amount, as prayed in

the claim application.

10) Heard learned counsels for both the parties and

perused the record.

11) Now, the point for determination is:

i) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? If so, to what extent?

ii) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to remaining balance compensation amount, as prayed in the claim application?

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

negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle van, the

petitioners relied on the evidence of PW2. The evidence of

PW2 goes to show that, she was traveling in the offending

vehicle van along with her husband at the time of accident

and she deposed in her evidence that the driver of the

offending vehicle maruthi van drove the vehicle in a rash

and negligent manner due to that the deceased died in a

road accident. On appreciation of the entire evidence on

record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that, the

accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the maruthi van. Ex.A1 - attested

copy of the F.I.R. also proves the case of the claimants. By

assailing reasons, the Tribunal rightly came to a

conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle van. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the

award given by the Tribunal.

13) The claim of the claimants is that, the deceased used

to earn Rs.12,000/- per month as Advocate Clerk under

three Advocates, but, in order to prove the same, no

evidence is adduced by the claimants. Therefore, on

considering the entire evidence on record, since the

accident occurred in the year 2006, the monthly income of

the deceased was arrived at Rs.3,000/- per month

[Rs.100/- per day] and annual income as Rs.36,000/- per

annum [Rs.3,000/- x 12]. By deducting 1/3rd out of

Rs.36,000/-, an amount of Rs.24,000/- is available to the

dependents [Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/-]. Since, the age of

the deceased was '36' years and the relevant multiplier

applicable to the age group of the deceased is "16", the

Tribunal come to the conclusion that the claimants are

entitled to an amount of Rs.3,84,000/- [Rs.24000/- x 16]

towards 'loss of dependency'. In addition to the above

amount, the Tribunal awarded Rs.32,000/- under the

conventional heads. As per the decision of National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, an

amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of

consortium' to the 1st claimant; an 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, a sum of Rs.4,54,000/- is awarded towards

compensation to the claimants.

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

of Rs.4,16,000/- awarded by Tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.4,54,000/-. The claimants are entitled to enhanced

compensation of Rs.38,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

2017 (16) SCC 680

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The 2nd respondent owner of the offending vehicle and the

3rd respondent United India Insurance Company Limited

are directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation of

Rs.38,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, as ordered

above, within two months from the date of this judgment.

On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the

same along with interest therein equally. The share of 2 nd

and 3rd appellants/claimants shall be kept as fixed deposit

in a nationalized bank until they attains majority. On

attaining majority, the 2nd and 3rd appellants/claimants are

permitted to withdraw the same. No order as to costs.

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

in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_____________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Date: 13.10.2023 Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 896 of 2012

13.10.2023

sm