Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Narala Madhavi 3 Others vs G Krishnaiah And Anotehr on 18 October, 2023

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

             M.A.C.M.A No.640 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned Award dated

14.07.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.187 of 2011, on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

IV Additional District, Nellore, whereby an amount of

Rs.4,40,000/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per

annum was ordered by the Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby,

the claimants preferred this instant appeal for

disallowing portion of the claim of the claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in

the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in

claim application.

3. The aforesaid M.V.O.P.No.187 of 2011 was

preferred by the legal heirs of deceased Sri Narala

Sudhakar Reddy, under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), for granting 2 VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.(SR)No.38137 of 2014

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in a road accident that

occurred on 17.07.2009.

4. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may be

briefly stated as follows:-

On 17.07.2009, at about 04.30 a.m., while

Sudhakar Reddy, was going to Municipal Market,

Nellore, on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-26-B-6732 to

purchase vegetables, at about 5.00 a.m., when he

reached near Pitchireddy Kalyana Mandapam, Nellore,

meanwhile, the driver of the Auto bearing

No.AP-26-U-5510 has driven in a rash and negligent

manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of

Sudhakar Reddy, resulting which, he fell down with

injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, later

he was shifted to Bollineni Hospital, Nellore, for better

treatment, where he succumbed with injuries, while

undergoing treatment.

5. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending Auto

remained ex parte.

3 VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.(SR)No.38137 of 2014

6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement with

a plea that the claimants are not entitled any

compensation and there was a contributory negligence

on the part of the deceased in driving the two wheeler.

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

the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident was took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto driver bearingNo.AP-26-U-5510 and caused death of Narala Sudhakar Reddy?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, to what amount and from whom?

3. Whether the driver of the crime Auto was not possessing valid driving license as on the date of accident?

4. To what relief?

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

petitioners, PWs.1 to 2 are examined and marked as

Ex.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the 2nd respondent R.W.1 4 VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.(SR)No.38137 of 2014

and 2 are examined and marked as Ex.B.1 and so also

Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 are marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation

of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- and liability is fixed on the

both insured and insurer. Aggrieved thereby, this

instant appeal is preferred by the claimants for

disallowing portion of the remaining compensation of

Rs.60,000/- in the claim application.

10. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent?

2. Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for the remaining balance compensation as prayed for?

POINTS 1 and 2:

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

the driver of the offending vehicle/Auto, the petitioner

relied on his evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Admittedly,

P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the accident. P.W.2 is an

eyewitness to the accident, as per his evidence the 5 VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.(SR)No.38137 of 2014

accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/Auto.

Ex.A.1 attested copy of FIR, Ex.A.4 xerox copy of charge

sheet clearly goes to show that the case was registered

against the driver of the offending vehicle/Auto by the

Sub Inspector of Police, later after completion of

investigation, laid charge sheet against the driver of the

offending vehicle/Auto. The Tribunal on considering

the entire material on record came to a conclusion that

the accident in question occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle/Auto. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in

the said finding given by the Tribunal.

12. Coming to the compensation, the claim of the

claimants is that the deceased used to earn an amount

of Rs.300/- per day (Rs.300/- x 30 = Rs.9,000/-) i.e.,

Rs.9,000/- per month. The accident in question

occurred in the year 2009 by assailing reasons, the

Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the monthly

income of the deceased is Rs.3,000/- per month. As per 6 VGKR, J M.A.C.M.A.(SR)No.38137 of 2014

the decision of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another 1, the Tribunal

deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of

the deceased. If 1/4th amount is deducted, the amount

comes to Rs.27,000/- (Rs.36,000/- ÷ 4 = Rs.9,000/-).

As per the decision of Sarla Verma, the Tribunal rightly

applied the multiplier of „16‟ and awarded an amount of

Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further, an

amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the 1st claimant,

who is the wife of the deceased towards loss of

consortium, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses and amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of

estate by applying the decision of Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others,2. In total, the appellants/claimants

are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,02,000/-, their claim

is only Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, the claim of the

appellants is restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-.






2009 ACJ 1298

    2017 ACJ 2700
                                         7                              VGKR, J
                                                M.A.C.M.A.(SR)No.38137 of 2014

13. The offending vehicle/Auto is insured with the

insurer under Ex.B.1 and the policy is in force. The

contention of the Insurance Company is that the driver

of the offending vehicle/Auto is not having valid and

effective driving license. The Tribunal also arrived at

the same conclusion and by applying the principle laid

down in the decision of the Apex Court directed the

insurer to pay the total compensation amount and

recover the same from the insured. The principle laid

down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Swaran Singh and others3 case is that even in case of

absence, fake or invalid license or disqualification of the