Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Oriental Ins Co Ltd., Chittoor Dist vs V Murali 4 Others on 26 June, 2024
APHC010883632016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3364]
AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRABABU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2142 OF 2016
Between:
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE AT D.NO.8-1-210, PH ROAD DISTRICT
COURT, CHITTOOR TOWN & DIST.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. V.MURALI, S/O. LATE PAL RAJ, AGED 31 YEARS
2. MINOR DIMPUL, D/O.V.MURALI, AGED ABOUT 3 ½ YEARS, REP. BY
1ST RESPONDENT, V. MURALI AS HER GUARDIAN BEING HER
FATHER-BOTH ARE RESIDING AT RAMABHADRAPURAM VILLAGE
189, KOTHAPALLY POST, GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST.
3. D.SIREESHA, W/O. D.R.HEMANDRA KUMAR, AGED : NOT KNOWN,
BUT MAJOR, RESIDING AT D.NO.25-1487, R.R. COLONY,
REDDIGUNTA CHECK POST, CHITTOOR TOWN & DIST.
4. M.BABU, S/O. LATE MUNUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT D.NO.15-2794, AMBEDKAR NAGAR GREAMSPET,
CHITTOOR TOWN & DIST.
5. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN-CUM_MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HAVING OFFICE AT RTC 'X' ROAD, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD.
[RESPONDNTNO.5 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY TO THE MACMA]
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SRINIVASA RAO K
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. D SESHASAYANA REDDY
The Court made the following
JUDGMENT:
Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A is to the award, dated 05.05.2016, in
M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor,("Tribunal" for short), whereunder
the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation made by the claimants for
a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of V.Mukesh (hereinafter will be
referred to as "deceased") in a motor vehicle accident occurred on
06.03.2015, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the compensation.
2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A will hereinafter be referred to as
described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2015, according to the
averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, is that:
On 06.03.2015, there was a pooja of a new auto belonging to one of the
close relatives of the petitioners' at Kanipakam temple. So as to attend to the
same, the petitioners, the deceased V.Bhavitha and minor child V.Mukesh,
started in a motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-AN-8612. The first petitioner was
the rider of the vehicle. They were proceeding on the Kanipakam-Agarampalli
main road in front of Jayabala Kalayana Mandapam. At 11.05 a.m., one
APSRTC hire bus bearing No.AP-03-TA-3648 (hereinafter will be referred to
as "offending vehicle") driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against the two-wheeler. As a result, the petitioners and
deceased V. Mukesh and V. Bhavitha fell down on the road. The deceased
sustained a head injury and died on the spot. After the accident, he was taken
to the Government General Hospital, Chittoor, in an ambulance, but he died. A
case in Crime No. 132 of 2012 was registered under Sections 304-A and 338
of the IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was hale
and healthy. He had a bright future. Hence, the claim for compensation.
4. The respondent No.3 got filed a written statement contending in
substance that corporation entered into agreement with respondent No.1, who
is the owner of the bus bearing No. AP-03-TA-3648. The respondent No.4 is
the insurer. The bus owner paid premium. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 4 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. The respondent No.4 filed a counter contending in substance that the
claim of the petitioners is excessive and accident was occurred due to the
negligence of the deceased. As such, respondent No.4 need not pay any
compensation.
6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following
issues for trial:
(1) Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent
driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-03-TA-3648 or due to rash
and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-
AN-8612, i.e., 1st petitioner or by both?
(2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so
from whom and to what amount and?
(4) To what relief?
8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was
examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the contesting
respondent, no witness was examined, but Ex.B1 was marked. Ex.A1 was the
certified copy of FIR. Ex.A2 was the certified copy of charge-sheet. Ex.A3 was
the certified copy of P.M. certificate. Ex.A4 was the certified copy of M.V.I.
report. Ex.A5 was the certified copy of inquest report. Ex.A6 was the certified
copy of AIR. Ex.B1 was the hire agreement.
9. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well
as documentary evidence found that the accident was occurred due to rash
and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded
a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the compensation. Felt aggrieved of the
same, the unsuccessful respondent No.4-The Oriental Insurance Company
Limited with whom the offending vehicle was insured, filed the present
M.A.C.M.A.
10. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the point for determination is
whether the award of the Tribunal in awarding the compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any
grounds to interfere with the same?
Point:
11. Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend
that the deceased was a small boy, aged about 1 ½ years, who had no
income at all but the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/-, as such, the award needs to be interfered. Apart from this, the
parents of the deceased, the deceased and another kid were travelling on the
motor bike and the accident was occurred as the driver of the motor bike lost
control, as such, there may be contributory negligence aspect also.
12. Sri D.Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents/claimants, would contend that there was no contributory
negligence. The parents of the deceased, the deceased and another kid were
travelling on the motor bike. The deceased and another kid were aged about
1½ - 3 years only and there was no question of losing balance by rider of the
motor bike. The Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred on
account of the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. He
would submit that the date of accident was in the year 2015 and the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- which is reasonable and it needs no
interference. In Support of his contention, he would rely upon the decision in
Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala1.
13. As seen from the evidence, it is a case where P.W.1 adverted to the
case of the claimants in accordance with the pleadings. P.W.1 is no other than
the father of the deceased, who put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings.
According to him, he, the deceased V.Bhavitha, V.Mukesh and the 2nd
petitioner started on motor bike. The present claim is confined only with regard
to the death of the deceased i.e., minor child who was aged about 1 ½ years.
The evidence P.W.1 remained unshaken during the course of cross
examination. Apart from this, the evidence of P.W.1 has support from the
outcome of the investigation where the police laid a charge sheet under Ex.A2
alleging rash and negligent act against the driver of the offending vehicle and
in the accident the deceased No.1-the minor child of P.W.1 and wife-
deceased No.2 were expired. The present claim is only with regard to the
death of the minor child. So, the evidence on record proves the fact that on
account of the accident, the deceased-minor child of the 1st petitioner died
who was aged about 1 ½ years.
14. As seen from the award, the Tribunal took into consideration a lump
sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the compensation on account of the
death of the deceased.
15. As seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by
learned counsel for the contesting respondents/claimants, it was a case where
a minor boy aged about 10 years was expired. The date of the accident was in
LAWS(SC)2013 8 57
the year 1992 and the deceased was assisting his parents in agricultural
operations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
towards the compensation with regard to the death of the deceased minor boy
way back in the year 1992.
16. Coming to the present case on hand, though the deceased was aged
about 1 ½ years, the period of accident was in the year 2015. Considering the
period of accident and the age of the deceased, the overall compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive under
any circumstances. Having regard to the above, this Court does not find any
reason whatsoever to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.
17. The contention of the appellant that rider of the motor bike lost control
and contributed the accident is not at all tenable in the light of the
circumstances. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the
award of the Tribunal.
18. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed but under the circumstances
without costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRABABU
Dt.26.06.2024
MH
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRABABU
Date: 26.06.2024
MH
