Jagata Lakshmi 3 Others vs G Poorna Chandra Rao 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4972 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 4128 of 2014

JUDGMENT: -

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Order, dated 21.08.2014,

passed in M.V.O.P. No. 499 of 2012 on the file of Motor

Accidents      Claims   Tribunal-cum-V   Additional   District

Judge, Rajahmundry, whereby, the claim of the Claimants

was dismissed by the Tribunal; this instant Appeal is

preferred by the claim petitioners, questioning the legal

validity of the Order 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 claim petitioners filed the petition under Section

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

with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules [the 'Rules'] against

the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

for the death of one Jagata Satyanarayana @ Sathibabu,

[the 'deceased'], who is the husband of Claimant No. 1 and
                                2



father of Claimant Nos.2 to 4 in a motor vehicle accident

that took place on 13.04.2012.


4)     Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal may briefly be

stated as follows: -

i. On 13.04.2012 at about 4.30 A.M., while the

deceased was proceeding on his cycle on the left side

of the road margin near Gummuleru main road, the

1st respondent driver drove the lorry bearing

registration No. AP04 T 9571 in a rash and negligent

manner at high-speed and dashed the deceased cycle

from behind and ran over him, causing death of the

deceased.

ii. The Police registered a case against the driver of the

lorry under the relevant provisions of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 ['I.P.C.']. The 1st respondent is the

driver; the 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd

respondent is insurer of the lorry. Hence, all the

respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the petitioners.

5) The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed their separate

counter with a plea that they are not liable to pay any

compensation to the petitioners and prays to dismiss the

petition.

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

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the death of the deceased was caused in motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing No. AP4T 9571?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and against which respondents?

3) 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.A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,

RW1 to RW3 were examined and Ex.B1 got marked.

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

material available on record, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the claimants failed to prove negligence on

the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and dismissed

the petition of the claim petitioners. Aggrieved against the

dismissal of claim petition, 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? If so, to what extent?

ii) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation, as prayed for in the claim petition?

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

that, when the deceased was proceeding on his cycle on the

left side of the road margin near Gummuleru main road, in

the early hours on 13.04.2012, the offending vehicle lorry

bearing registration No. AP04 T 9571 driven by its driver

i.e., 1st respondent herein, drove the lorry in a rash and

negligent manner at high-speed, coming from Alamuru

side, dashed the deceased cycle from behind and ran over

him, resulting in the death of the deceased.

12) 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 and PW2 and so also Ex.A1 -

attested copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A5 - attested copy of the

charge-sheet. Ex.A1 [F.I.R.] goes to show that the F.I.R.

was registered against the driver of the offending lorry i.e.,

1st respondent herein. Ex.A5 [charge-sheet] also clearly

goes to show that, after completion of investigation, the

Police filed a charge-sheet by fixing the liability on the 1st

respondent herein, who is the driver of the offending

vehicle.

13) As stated supra, the date of accident is early hours at

3.00 A.M. on 13.04.2012 and the accident is reported to

the Police immediately without any delay on 13.04.2012

itself. Ex.A5 - charge-sheet filed by the Police clearly goes

to show that the Circle Inspector of Police, Mandapeta

Police Station, conducted investigation, in this case, and

after completion of investigation, by fixing the liability on

the driver of the offending vehicle, filed a charge-sheet

against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., the 1st

respondent herein.

14) The Tribunal without considering Ex.A1 [F.I.R.] and

Ex.A5 [charge-sheet] simply came to conclusion that, since

the offending lorry was sold to one Rayina Nagababu by the

2nd respondent, he was not added as a party to the lis and

the Tribunal further held that, no eye witnesses were

examined and that the accident, in question, is not proved.

But, the material on record clearly reveals that the accident

in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the offending vehicle lorry i.e., 1st respondent

herein. The Tribunal discredited Ex.A1 - F.I.R. and Ex.A5 -

charge-sheet. To disprove the same, even though the

respondent/insurance company examined the Inspector of

Police as 'RW3', the evidence of RW3 is no way helpful to

Respondent No. 3 to prove the defence. Therefore, on

considering the entire evidence available on record, I am of

the considered view that the accident in question occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle lorry bearing No. AP04 T 9571 i.e., the 1st

respondent herein, in which the deceased sustained fatal

injuries and died at the spot itself.

15) Coming to the compensation, as per Ex.A2 - inquest

report and Ex.A3 post-mortem report, the deceased was

aged about 52 years, at the time of accident. The

contention of the appellants is that, the deceased used to

earn Rs.300/- per day by doing coolie work. But no

evidence was let-out by the Claimants to prove the income

of the deceased. The accident in question occurred in the

year 2012. In those days, an ordinary coolie can easily earn

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.3,000/- per month and his

annual income was arrived at Rs.36000/- [Rs.3,000/- x 12

months]. The dependents on the deceased are four in

number. As per the decision of Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation1, 1/4th has to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th is

deducted, Rs. Rs.27,000/- (Rs.36,000/- - Rs.9,000/-) is

2009 (4) SCJ 91

available to the dependents. As stated supra, the deceased

was aged about 52 years as on the date of accident. So, as

per the judgment of Sarla Varma [cited 1st supra], the

relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the

deceased is "11". Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,97,000/-

(Rs.27,000/- x 11) is awarded as 'loss of dependency'.

Apart from that, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was awarded

towards 'loss of consortium' to the 1st Petitioner, who lost

her husband at the age of 40 years, an amount of

Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards 'funeral expenses of the

deceased' and Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards 'loss of

estate'. In total, a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- is awarded

towards compensation to the claimants.

16) It is not in dispute by both sides that the offending

vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent/insurance

company and the policy is in force. Ex.B1 - policy also

proves the same and it is also not in dispute by both sides

that the driver of the offending is having valid driving

license. Therefore, the 3rd respondent being the insurer of

the lorry is liable to pay the compensation, as awarded by

this Court.

17) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The

Decree and Order of the Tribunal, dated 21.08.2014,

passed in M.V.O.P. No. 499 of 2012, is liable to be set-

aside. Consequently, the claim application in M.V.O.P.

No.499 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry,

is partly allowed by granting compensation of

Rs.3,67,000/- to the claimants towards total compensation

with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till

the date of realization. The 3rd respondent/Shriram

General Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit

the compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- with interest at 6% per

annum within two months from the date of this judgment.

On such deposit, the 1st appellant/claimant is entitled to

withdraw Rs.1,27,000/- along with interest therein. The

2nd to 4th appellants/claimants are entitled to

compensation of Rs.80,000/- each with interest therein.

The 2nd appellant/claimant No.2 is entitled to withdraw her

share. The share of 3rd and 4th appellants/claimants shall

be kept as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank until they

attain majority. On attaining majority, the 3rd and 4th

appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.

No order as to costs.

18) 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. 4128 of 2014

13.10.2023

sm