Respondent/Insurance Company ... vs M/S. Navatha Road
2023 Latest Caselaw 3976 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                       M.A.C.M.A.No. 978 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District

Judge, Tirupati, in M.V.O.P.No.488 of 2005, the 2nd

respondent/Insurance company preferred this instant appeal

questioning the legal validity of the order of 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 (1)

(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 455 and 475 of

the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of

J. Nagaraju in a motor vehicle accident that took place on

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

20.04.2004 at about 6.15 p.m. on Renigunta-Srikalahasti main road

at Mallavaram.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are

as follows:

i) The 1st petitioner is the first wife, the 2nd petitioner is the

mother, the 3rd petitioner is the second wife and the 4th petitioner is

the minor son of the deceased.

ii) On 20.04.2004 while the deceased was proceeding to Puttur

on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03M 6663 along with

one M.Giri as a pillion rider after collecting hire charges of lorries

from Coco Cola Factory at Rachagunneri at about 6.15 p.m., a

tipper lorry bearing registration No.AP 03V 5778 being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed the motor

cycle of the deceased resulting in the instantaneous death of the

deceased. The Station House Officer, Renigunta P.S. registered a

case in crime No.57 of 2004 for the offences punishable under

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is owner and

the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending tipper lorry, hence,

both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the petitioners.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd

respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the

manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

The 2nd respondent admitted the subsistence of the policy. It is

pleaded that the rider of the motor cycle was not holding a valid and

effective driving licence at the time of accident, the 1st respondent

had not complied with the provisions of Section 149 (6) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, as such, the Insurance company is not liable to pay

any compensation to the petitioners.

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

following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting the death of the deceased and if so was it due to fault of the driver of Tipper of 1st respondent bearing No.AP 03V 5778?

2) Whether the Tipper in question belongs to R.1 and stood insured with R.2 by the date of accident and if so whether the policy covers the risk of the deceased?

3) Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased and entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount, from which of the respondent?

4) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of

the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.34 and

Exs.X.1 to X.10 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/

Insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

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

the offending tipper lorry and accordingly, allowed the petition in part

and granted an amount of Rs.5,28,000/- with proportionate costs

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

deposit against both the respondents. Questioning the legal validity

of the said order, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company preferred

the present appeal.

9. Heard Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, representing

Sri Nasaraiah Golla, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

company, and Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 to 4/petitioners and perused the record.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

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

11. POINT: The case of the petitioners is that the deceased

was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03M 6663

to Puttur along with one M.Giri as a pillion rider after collecting hire

charges of lorries from Coco Cola Factory at Rachagunneri at about

6.15 p.m., at that time, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.AP 03V

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

5778 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came

and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased resulting in the

instantaneous death of the deceased.

12. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending tipper lorry, the petitioners relied on the evidence of

P.W.2. P.W.2 is the pillion rider of the motor cycle and he is a

natural witness to the accident because he was proceeding on the

motor cycle being driven by the deceased. As per his evidence,

which is corroborated by Ex.A.1-first information report and Ex.A.2-

charge sheet, the accident occurred on account of rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper lorry of the 1st

respondent. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the

Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no

need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. In order to prove the quantum of compensation, the petitioners

relied on the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7. According to the petitioners,

the deceased was a native of Kovanur village, apart from cultivation

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

he owns two lorries, his wife owns another lorry and he was an Auto

Consultant and Commissioner Agent of Varun Auto Finance,

Chennai. In order to prove the avocation and income of the

deceased, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 7 and

Exs.A.2, A.7 to A.34 and Exs.X.1 to X.10. In order to prove that the

deceased owns agricultural lands, the petitioners relied on Exs.A.2,

A.18 to A.22 and A.26 to A.28. By giving cogent reasons, the

Tribunal arrived that the deceased owns Acs.3.68 cents of land. By

applying the decision in G.Lakshmamma Vs. M/s. Navatha Road

Transport, Vijayawada reported in 2002 (2) ALT 39, the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.1,56,000/- towards loss of income

(supervisory charges). The Tribunal held in its order that on account

of the death of the deceased, the value of supervisory services of

the deceased have to be first estimated and it will not be merely

equivalent to the value of the services of a farm servant or a

manager of the property employed for that purpose. The Tribunal

further held that a farm servant cannot substitute the death of an

agriculturist. As per Ex.A.16-driving licence of the deceased, the age

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

of the deceased was 46 years as on the date of accident and the

relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is

'13'. By relying on a decision in D.Vinodu Vs. B.Baswa Raju

reported in 1988 (2) ALT 46, the Tribunal fixed the monthly

contribution of the deceased to his family towards loss of

supervisory charges @ Rs.1,000/- p.m. i.e., Rs.12,000/- per annum

and arrived at the loss of income of supervisory charges at

Rs.1,56,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x multiplier '13'). By considering the oral

and documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly awarded

Rs.1,56,000/- towards loss of income of supervisory charges.

14. As there is no satisfactory evidence placed on record by the

petitioners with regard to the income of the deceased as a

businessman, by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal arrived the

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- i.e., Rs.36,000/- per

annum and after deducting 1/3rd from out of annual income towards

personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the relevant

multiplier '13', the Tribunal arrived the loss of dependency to the

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

family members of the deceased at Rs.3,12,000/- (Rs.24,000/-

(Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/-) x multiplier '13'). Apart from that, the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- each to petitioner Nos.1

and 3 towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral

expenses of the deceased, and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate.

15. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,28,000/-

towards compensation to the petitioners. The compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, in my view, is just and reasonable. No

appeal or cross-objections is filed by the petitioners for

enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, there is no need to

interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

16. The Tribunal in its order held that the 1st respondent being

owner of the offending tipper lorry is vicariously liable to the

negligent act of his driver, the 2nd respondent being insurer is liable

to indemnify the 1st respondent, therefore, both the respondents are

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the

Tribunal.

17. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality or

irregularity in the impugned order of the Tribunal and it is perfectly

sustainable under law and the appeal is devoid of merits, therefore,

it is liable to be dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, while confirming the

decree and order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati,

in M.V.O.P.No.488 of 2005. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

appeal shall stand closed.

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J st 1 September, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.978 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 978 of 2012

1st September, 2023 cbs