Katta Bala Anr, Guntur District vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4526 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.205 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 22.01.2008 passed

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal

District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2007, whereby the

Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioners, the

instant appeal is preferred by the appellants/petitioners.

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

be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

3. The petitioners filed the claim petition under Sections 163-A

and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents

praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- towards

compensation for the death of their son, namely, Katta Souri

Lurdhaiah, who was aged 8 years, in a Motor Vehicle Accident that

occurred on 31.03.1991.

                                     2                                  VGKRJ
                                                          MACMA No.205 of 2012

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

as follows:

By the time of accident, the deceased was studying 2 nd class.

On 31.03.1991 at about 6.00 p.m. when the deceased was crossing

the road in his village to go to neighbour's house, the bus of the

respondent/APSRTC bearing registration No.AEZ 3836 being driven

by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came

from Sattenapalli side and dashed against the deceased, as a result,

the deceased fell down and the wheels of the bus ran over him

resulting in his spot death. The Police, Pedakurapadu P.S.,

registered a case against the bus driver and also charge sheeted

him.

5. The respondent/APSRTC filed a written statement by denying

the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due

to negligence of the deceased and the respondent has already paid

a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioners towards full satisfaction of

their claim for the death of their son in the accident.

                                    3                                 VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA No.205 of 2012

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

following issues:

i. Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AEZ 3836 by its driver?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what would the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

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

the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were

marked. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC, R.W.1 was

examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.

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

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

dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the

respondent/APSRTC has already paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to

the petitioners towards full settlement of their claim for the death of

their son in the accident in question. Aggrieved by the same, the 4 VGKRJ MACMA No.205 of 2012

petitioners filed the present appeal claiming the compensation

amount.

9. Heard Sri K. Siva Prasad, learned counsel, representing Sri A.

Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners, and

Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned standing counsel for the

respondent/APSRTC and perused the record.

10. Now, the points for determination are:

1. Whether the Order of the Tribunal needs any interference, if so, to what extent? and

2. Whether the appellants/petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2: In order to prove the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the petitioners relied

on the evidence of P.W.1 as well as Exs.A.1-certified copy of first

information report and Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet. P.W.1

is none other than the mother of the deceased. She reiterated the

contents of the claim petition in her chief examination affidavit.

Ex.A.1 goes to show that the police registered a case against the 5 VGKRJ MACMA No.205 of 2012

bus driver with regard to the accident in question. Ex.A.2 also goes

to show that after completion of investigation into the accident, the

police charge sheeted the bus driver holding him responsible for the

accident. As against the evidence of P.W.1, the respondent failed to

examine the bus driver as a witness to prove their version that the

accident was due to fault of the deceased himself and there was no

rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. The

evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 clearly proves that

the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the RTC bus.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners would contend

that the petitioners received an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the

respondent towards ex-gratia and they never gave up their right to

approach the Tribunal for compensation. He would also contend that

taking advantage of the illiteracy of the petitioners, the officials of the

respondent obtained Exs.B.1 to B.3 from them. The learned counsel,

therefore, prays to set aside the impugned award and grant

compensation as prayed for by allowing the appeal.

                                    6                              VGKRJ
                                                     MACMA No.205 of 2012

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/APSRTC

would submit that immediately after the accident, the respondent

paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioners towards full and final

settlement of their claim for the death of their son in the accident,

and in proof of the same, the petitioners executed a willing letter, a

stamped receipt and a discharge voucher which were marked as

Exs.B.1 to B.3 respectively. The learned counsel would also submit

that on considering Exs.B.1 to B.3, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the

claim petition and the award passed by the Tribunal is sustainable,

therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

14. The petitioners are none other than the parents of the

deceased boy who is aged about 8 years by the time of accident.

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and as

such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual

occurrence of accident has been established, the Tribunal role

would be to award just and fair compensation. In the present case,

the occurrence of the accident has been established by the

petitioners. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on 7 VGKRJ MACMA No.205 of 2012

the ground that the respondent paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the

petitioners towards full and final settlement of their claim for the

death of their son in the accident. The petitioners are claiming

compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- for the death of their son in the

accident. "It is a well settled norm that money cannot substitute

a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just

compensation having uniformity of approach". Here, at the time

of accident, the son of the petitioners is aged about 8 years, and

due to sudden occurrence of the accident, the entire life of the boy

was ended at the age of 8 years. Therefore, the petitioners being

parents suffered a lot of mental agony and loss of love and affection,

the same cannot be estimated in terms of money.

15. In Hukmabati Vs. Punjab Roadways 1 , the High Court of

Himachal Pradesh, while considering the case of the deceased, who

was aged about 15 years and studying 10 th class, estimated the

future earnings of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, the

monetary loss to the mother was taken at Rs.1,500/- per month and

total compensation was awarded at Rs.2,70,000/-. As stated supra,

2006 ACJ 260 8 VGKRJ MACMA No.205 of 2012

money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for

grant of just compensation having uniformity approach. In the

instant case, the deceased boy is aged about 8 years at the time of

accident. By applying the principle laid down in the afore-mentioned

decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the monetary loss

to the mother, who is the 2nd petitioner, is taken at Rs.1,500/- per

month i.e., Rs.18,000/- per annum. Considering the overall facts

and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is

just and necessary to award a total compensation of Rs.1,44,000/-

by applying multiplier '8' (Rs.18,000/- X multiplier '8') to the

petitioners for the death of their son in the accident. Exs.B.1 to B.3

go to show that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was received by the

petitioners towards compensation, therefore, the said amount has to

be deducted from out of Rs.1,44,000/-.

16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order and

decree dated 22.01.2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur, in

M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2007, are hereby set aside. Consequently, 9 VGKRJ MACMA No.205 of 2012

M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2007 is allowed in part and the petitioners are

entitled to an amount of Rs.1,14,000/- towards total compensation

with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of payment by the respondent/APSRTC. The

respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount of

Rs.1,14,000/- with costs and interest as ordered above, before the

Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. After

depositing the compensation amount, the petitioners are entitled to

withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon equally.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J th 26 September, 2023 cbs 10 VGKRJ MACMA No.205 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.205 of 2012

26th September, 2023

cbs