D.Prabhavathi 4 Ors vs M.Yalladri Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 4180 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3190 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.09.2011 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-VII Additional District Judge

(FTC), Madanapalle, passed in M.V.O.P.No.196 of 2009, whereby

the Tribunal partly allowed the claim of claimants against the first

respondent, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellants-

claimants against the exoneration of the Insurance company from

the liability of payment of the compensation amount.

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 claimants filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards

compensation on account of death of deceased Lakshminarayana in

a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 12.01.2009.

                                   2                             VGKRJ
                                                    MACMA 3190 of 2012

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated

as follows:

On 12.01.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. Mr.Lakshminarayana,

hereinafter referred to as 'deceased', and V.Reddappa were

proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP09R 8820

and when they reached Ramiganipalle on Thamballapalle-

Madanapalle road, the driver of Tata Van bearing registration

No.AP03X 6011, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', which

belongs to first respondent and insured with second respondent

Insurance company, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, resulting

which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, later succumbed to

injuries.

5. The first and second respondents filed counters denying the

claim of the claimants and contended that the claimants are not

entitled any compensation and the first and second respondents are

not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

                                           3                             VGKRJ
                                                            MACMA 3190 of 2012




 i.    Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of Tata Van bearing No.AP03X 6011 involved resulting the death of D.Lakshminarayana?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount? iii. 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 second respondent, RW1 and

RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and Ex.X1 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.4,41,500/- to the claimants towards

compensation from the respondent No.1 and claim against the

respondent No.2/Insurance Company is dismissed. Aggrieved

against the exoneration of the Insurance company from the liability

of payment of the compensation amount and for enhancement of 4 VGKRJ MACMA 3190 of 2012

compensation amount, the appellants/petitioners preferred the

present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the

record.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

     1. Whether    the   Order     of    Tribunal   needs      any
       interference?

2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

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

the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1

and PW2. PW1 is the wife of the deceased and she is not an eye

witness to the accident. PW2 is the eye witnesses to the accident.

As per the evidence of PW2, at the time of accident, the driver of the

offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased and caused

instantaneous death of the deceased. The same is supported by

Ex.A1 copy of First Information Report and Ex.A4 copy of charge 5 VGKRJ MACMA 3190 of 2012

sheet. Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 clearly reveal that a case was registered

against the driver of the offending vehicle and after completion of

investigation, charge sheet was laid against the driver of the

offending van for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of

Indian Penal Code, 1860. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal

held in its order that the accident in question was occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van. I do not

find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the

Tribunal.

12. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal granted an amount

of Rs.4,41,500/- to the claimants towards total compensation

against the first respondent. As per the case of the petitioners, the

deceased used to earn Rs.200/- per day on tractor-trailer and

Rs.1,25,000/- per annum from agriculture. But no oral or

documentary evidence was adduced to prove the said quantum,

however by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal arrived the monthly

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

The accident in question occurred in the year 2009. In those days

an ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.100/- per day i.e., Rs.3,000/-

                                      6                             VGKRJ
                                                       MACMA 3190 of 2012

per month. Accordingly, monthly income of the deceased arrived by

the Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- is just and proper. I do not find any legal

flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. Coming to the multiplier applied by the Tribunal, the age of the

deceased was 25 years and the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18,

therefore, it warrants no interference. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 rd

income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since the

dependents on the deceased are five in number, as per the decision

of Sarla Verma's case, 1/4th income has to be deducted towards

personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th income is deducted, the

net income available to the dependents on the deceased is

Rs.27,000/- (36,000 - 9,000) per annum. Since the deceased was

aged about 25 years, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age

group of the deceased is 18. Accordingly, an amount of

Rs.4,86,000/- (27,000 x 18) is awarded to the claimants towards

loss of dependency. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is

awarded towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner and an

amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the

deceased. In total, the claimants are entitled an amount of 7 VGKRJ MACMA 3190 of 2012

Rs.5,26,000/- towards compensation. But the claimants claimed an

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

Rs.5,00,000/- only.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the

offending vehicle is Tata Ace transport vehicle and the driver of the

offending vehicle is having Light Motor Vehicle driving licence and

the policy is in force. As per the evidence of RW1 and Ex.B1 to

Ex.B3, the driver of the first respondent had no transport driving

licence and he possessed Light Motor Vehicle non-transport driving

licence only. The material on record reveals that the offending

vehicle is Light Motor Vehicle transport and the driver of the

offending vehicle possessed the driving licence of Light Motor

Vehicle non-transport and the transport endorsement is not there on

the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. No doubt

the offending vehicle is a light Motor Vehicle transport, but the

driving skills of transport Light Motor Vehicle and non-transport Light

Motor Vehicle are one and the same.

                                             8                                  VGKRJ
                                                                MACMA 3190 of 2012

15. In a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund

Dewangan Vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited1 held that

(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.

(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to

(h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude

2017 LawSuit (SC) 735 9 VGKRJ MACMA 3190 of 2012

transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.

Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, the driving licence of driver of 1 st

respondent is sufficient to drive the crime vehicle/van. Therefore,

objection taken by the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company cannot

be accepted. Accordingly, the driver of first respondent is having

valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle/ van

on the date of accident. Since the offending vehicle is insured with

the second respondent/ Insurance Company, the second

respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount to the

claimants at first instance and later recover the same from the first

respondent/ owner of the offending vehicle.

                                     10                           VGKRJ
                                                     MACMA 3190 of 2012

16. In the result, this appeal is allowed, modifying the order dated

21.09.2011 passed in MVOP No.196/2009 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (Fast

Track Court), Madanapalle, consequently the claim amount is

enhanced from Rs.4,41,500/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellants/

claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards total

compensation with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till

the date of realization. The 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with

interest as ordered above within two months from the date of this

judgment, before the Tribunal at first instance and later recover the

total compensation amount with interest from the first respondent/

owner of the offending vehicle, by filing an Execution Petition and

without filing any independent suit. The first petitioner is entitled an

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with accrued interest thereon, the

second and third petitioners are entitled an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

each along with accrued interest thereon, the fourth petitioner is

entitled an amount of Rs.40,000/- along with accrued interest

thereon and the fifth petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.60,000/-

along with accrued interest thereon. The petitioners 2 and 3 are 11 VGKRJ MACMA 3190 of 2012

entitled to withdraw their share of compensation amount after

attaining majority. Until they attain majority, their share of

compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon shall be

kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank. After depositing the

compensation amount along with accrued interest, the petitioners 1,

4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw their share of compensation amount

along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 12.09.2023.

sj
                           12                          VGKRJ
                                          MACMA 3190 of 2012






     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




              M.A.C.M.A.No.3190 of 2012



                     12.09.2023

sj