Velagala Parvathi 3 Ors vs Y.Prabhakara Rao Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 5207 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 445 of 2014

JUDGMENT: -

1)   Aggrieved by the impugned Order and Decree, dated

30.12.2010, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 213 of 2009 on the file

of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, West Godavari, whereby, the

claim of Rs.3,68,530/- 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'], read

with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 [the

'Rules'] against the respondents claiming compensation of

Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of one Velagala Rama Linga
                              2


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

took place on 06.07.2005.


4)    Facts

germane to dispose of the Appeal in brief is as

follows: -

i. On 06.07.2005 at about 2.30 P.M., near Neggipudi

Village, when the deceased, who is the husband of

the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd to 4th

petitioners, was proceeding on the road, at that time,

one Maruthi Van bearing registration No.AP31 R 615

driven by the 1st respondent, who is the owner-cum-

driver, which was insured with the 2nd respondent, in

a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased,

due to that the deceased sustained grievous injury

and was shifted to Government Hospital, Tanuku, for

treatment, where he succumbed to injuries. A case in

Crime No. 41 of 2005 was registered by the Police,

Penumantra Police Station, for the offence punishable

under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The 1st

respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle van

and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company

and, hence, both the respondents are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle van

remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent/insurance company

filed written statement denying the claim of the claimants

and pleaded that the claimants are not entitled for any

compensation since the entire negligence is on the part of

the deceased and prays to dismiss the petition.

6) Based on the above pleadings, the following issues

were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

(i) Whether the accident dated 6.7.2005 which resulted in the death of the deceased Velagala Ramalinga Reddy occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Van bearing Number AP31 R 615 by the 1st respondent as alleged in the petition?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

(iii) To what relief?

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

petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no

witness was examined but Ex.B1 is marked.

8) At the culmination of the enquiry and on appreciation

of the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal

awarded compensation of Rs.3,68,530/- 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.

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 remaining balance compensation amount, as prayed in the claim application?

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

that, on 06.07.2005 at about 2.30 P.M., near Neggipudi

Village, when the deceased was proceeding on the road, at

that time, one Maruthi Van bearing registration No.AP31 R

615 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent

manner dashed him, due to which he sustained grievous

injuries and died.

12) In order to prove rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle van, the petitioners relied on

the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is not an eye witness to

the accident. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. On

considering the evidence of PW2, Ex.A1 - attested copy of

the F.I.R. and Ex.A5 - attested copy of the 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 maruthi van bearing registration No.AP31 R

615. Ex.A2 - attested copy of the post-mortem certificate

and Ex.A3 - attested copy of inquest report, goes to show

that in the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous

injuries and later he was succumbed to injuries. 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) Coming to the compensation, the case of the

claimants is that, the deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/-

per month as a postmaster. In addition to the above, he

used to earn Rs.3,000/- by doing leasehold cultivation by

the date of his death. As per Ex.A6 - attested copy of the

salary pay certificate of the deceased produced before the

Tribunal, he deceased used to earn Rs.2,655/- per month.

The Tribunal has taken the said amount as the income of

the deceased and the Tribunal did not consider the amount

of Rs.3,000/- income of the deceased for leasehold

cultivation as claimed by the claimants.

14) The material on record shows that the contention of

the claimants that the deceased was postmaster and used

to receive Rs.2,655/- per month towards salary and in

addition to the above amount, he used to earn Rs.3,000/-

per month by doing leasehold cultivation. No doubt, no

proof is filed by the claimants to show the income of

Rs.3,000/- per month on leasehold cultivation by the

deceased. In the present case, the claimants are four in

number and are dependents on the deceased. The claimants

are none other than the wife and the children of the

deceased. Naturally, the claimants who are the dependents of

the deceased have to depend upon the income of the

deceased. An amount of Rs.2,655/- per month is not

sufficient to meet the necessities of the family members of the

deceased, who are total five in number including the

deceased. So, the deceased has to do other work for

maintenance of the family. Naturally no documentary proof is

available for leasehold cultivation of agricultural land.

Therefore, on considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the considered view that the deceased used to

earn Rs.1,000/- per month i.e., Rs.12,000/- per annum for

doing leasehold cultivation. Therefore, the annual income of

the deceased is Rs.31,860/- [salary] + Rs.12,000/- [leasehold

income per year]. The total annual income is Rs.43,860/-.

The dependents on the deceased are four in number. As

per the decision of National Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Pranay Sethi1, 1/4th amount has to be deducted

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

2017 (16) SCC 680

deducted from out of Rs.43,860/-, an amount of

Rs.32,895/- [Rs.43,860/- - Rs.10,965/-] is available to the

dependents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about

'45' years by the date of his death. Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 also

goes to show the same. The relevant multiplier applicable

to the age group of the deceased is "14". Therefore,

Rs.4,60,530/- [Rs.32,895/- x 14] is awarded to the

claimants towards 'loss of dependency'. An amount of

Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of consortium' to the

1st claimant; an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards

'funeral expenses'. In total, a sum of Rs.4,90,530/- is

awarded towards compensation to the claimants.

15) It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is

insured with the 2nd respondent/United India Insurance

Company Limited and the policy is in force. In-fact, the

Tribunal fastened the liability against both the

respondents. No appeal is filed by the respondents against

the said finding. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to

enhanced compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- [Rs.4,90,530/- -

Rs.3,68,530/-] towards enhanced compensation with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realization.

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

of Rs.3,68,530/- awarded by Tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.4,90,530/-. The claimants are entitled to enhanced

compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

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

Both the respondents are directed to deposit the said

enhanced compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- with interest at

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

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

claimant is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.47,000/-

with interest therein and the 2nd to 4th claimants are

entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- each 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: 30.10.2023/ Sm..

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 445 of 2014

.10.2023

sm