Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Lakshmi, Vizianagaram 1 Other vs G V Venkata Apparao. E.Godavari Dist 2 ... on 26 June, 2024
APHC010043092016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3364]
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2408 OF 2016
Between:
1. SEETI LAKSHMI, W/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O ULLIBADRA VILLAGE,
GARUGUBILLI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM.
2. SETTI VENKATA RAMANA, S/O LATE RAMINAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, R/O ULLIBADRA VILLAGE, GARUGUBILLI MANDAL,
VIZIANAGARAM.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. GANTROTHU VEERA VENKATA APPARAO, S/O LATE
VENKATARAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, DRIVER OF LORRY
BEARING NO. AP 10 T 2277, R/O D.NO. 18-9-127, GANDHINAGAR,
SAMALKOTA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. GANTROTHU BABURAO, S/O LATE VENKATARAO, AGED ABOUT
41 YEARS, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 10 T 2277, R/O
D.NO. 18-69-12, GANDHINAGAR, SAMALKOTA VILLAGE & MANDAL,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP., BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRIKAKULAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SURESH KUMAR PUSARLA
2. A JAYANTHI
The Court made the following:
Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A is to the award, dated 07.04.2016, in
M.V.O.P.No.303 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, ("Tribunal" for short)
whereunder the Tribunal dealing with the claim of compensation made by the
petitioners under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, awarded a sum of
Rs.90,900/- towards the compensation payable by the respondent Nos.1 to 3
jointly and severally with a direction to respondent No.3 to deposit the
compensation amount within two months and made appropriate
apportionment of the compensation among the petitioners.
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 brief before the Tribunal in a claim under
Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is that:
Setti Suresh (hereinafter will be referred to as "deceased") is the son of
the petitioners. He died in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to
involvement of lorry bearing No.AP-10-T-2277 (hereinafter will be referred to
as "offending vehicle") that took place on 03.01.2013 at about 3.00 p.m. The
petitioners are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about
21 years. The deceased was a labourer and earning Rs.125/- per day. On
03.01.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased and his friend Buri Sankararao
went to Thotapalli canal for bathing. They found a lorry loaded with sugarcane
crop coming on the way. When the deceased snatched a sugarcane piece, he
fell under the rear wheel of the same lorry and died on the spot. On the report
given by the 2nd petitioner, the S.H.O., Garugubilli Police Station registered
FIR in Cr.No.3 of 2013 under Section 304-A IPC against the respondent No.1.
The petitioners being the parents of the deceased filed M.V.O.P. claiming
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence, the claim.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.3 got filed a counter contending in substance that
the petitioners have to prove the age, income, occupation of the deceased,
manner of the accident and involvement of the lorry of the respondent No.2 in
the crime in question. The claim of the petitioners is excessive. Hence, it is
liable to be dismissed.
6. Originally, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligence of the
deceased, or, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st
respondent, or both of them contributed for the accident for their
negligence? If so, to what percentage?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what
amount and which respondents are liable to pay the compensation
amount?
(3) To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the contesting
respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
8. The Tribunal at the time of judgment re-casted the issues as follows:
(1) Whether the accident occurred was due to usage of the 2nd
respondent‟s lorry bearing No.AP-10-T-2277 and the deceased died in
this accident?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what
rate and from whom?
(3) To what relief?
9. The Tribunal answered the re-casted issues against the contesting
respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.90,900/- towards compensation to the
petitioners. The petitioners feeling aggrieved that the compensation so
awarded is not just and reasonable, filed the present M.A.C.M.A., with a
prayer to enhance the compensation.
10. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the simple question that falls
for consideration is whether the award, dated 07.04.2016, in M.V.O.P.No.303
of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional
District Judge, Parvathipuram, in awarding compensation of Rs.90,900/-, as
against the original claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, is sustainable under law and facts
and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?
Point:
11. The main contention of Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants is that in a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, there was no
need or necessity for the petitioners to plead rash and negligent. When the
Tribunal made positive findings about the involvement of lorry bearing No.AP-
10-T-2277 in causing the death of the deceased, the finding made by the
Tribunal as regards the alleged contributory negligence deserves no merits. In
a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the duty of the Tribunal is only to
give finding as to the involvement of the vehicle and that on account of the
same the death of the deceased was occurred. It is immaterial as to whether
the deceased was negligent or not. The Tribunal arrived at the income of
deceased basing on notional theory and arrived at the multiplicand as that of
Rs.4,32,000/- and deducted 1/3rd of the amount and arrived at Rs.2,88,000/-
and erroneously attributed 70% of the negligence against the deceased and
arrived at the compensation of meager amount. He would submit that this
Court may consider to enhance the compensation by setting aside the finding
of the Tribunal as regards the contributory negligence.
12. Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, would
contend that even according to the petitioners the deceased was negligent in
snatching sugarcane piece from the moving lorry, as such, he fell under the
tyres of lorry and died. So, when the deceased was negligent, the Tribunal
rightly fixed 70% of his negligence and awarded just compensation which
needs no interference. In support of her contention, she relied upon the
decision in Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company
and another1.
13. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she put forth the facts in tune with
the pleadings. Through her examination Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1
was attested true copy of FIR in Cr.No.3/2013 of Garugubilli Police Station.
Ex.A2 was the attested true copy of post-mortem certificate. Ex.A3 was the
attested true copy of inquest report. Ex.A4 was the attested true copy of M.V.I
report. Ex.A5 was the attested true copy of charge sheet.
14. P.W.2 was examined to speak of the incident. By virtue of the evidence
of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A1-copy of FIR, Ex.A2-copy of post
mortem report, Exs.A3 to A5-inquest report, MVI report and charge sheet,
there is no dispute about the involvement of the vehicle bearing
No. AP-10-T-2277. It is well settled that in a claim under Section 163-A of the
M.V. Act, there is no need to plead and prove the rash and negligent act.
Hence, the evidence on record quietly proves the fact that the vehicle bearing
No.AP-10-T-2277 involved in the accident which caused the death of the
deceased. It is immaterial whether the deceased was negligent or not.
15. It is to be noted that the Tribunal arrived at the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.24,000/- per annum and considering the age of the deceased
as 21 years, applied the multiplier „18‟ in accordance with the Schedule-II of
M.V. Act. It is to be noted that the proper multiplier in Schedule-II of the M.V.
Act between the age group of 20-25 years is „17‟ but not „18‟. The Tribunal
erroneously arrived at the figure of Rs.4,32,000/-. So, if the annual income of
the deceased i.e., Rs.24,000/- is multiplied with multiplier „17‟, it would comes
to Rs.4,08,000/- only. So, according to Schedule-II of the M.V. Act related to
(2020)2SCC550
Section 163-A of M.V. Act, 1/3rd is to be deducted, as such, the amount is to
be fixed as Rs.2,72,000/- but not Rs.2,88,000/-, as determined by the
Tribunal. It is to be noted that the Tribunal found that the deceased had
contributed negligence towards his death. It is to be noted that a claim under
Section 163-A of M.V. Act, the petitioners were not required to plead and
prove rash and negligent act against driver of the offending vehicle. The so-
called contributory negligence as fixed by the Tribunal needs interference.
16. In my considered view, the Tribunal erroneously attributed contributory
negligence against the deceased. The petitioners need not prove rash and
negligent act against the driver of the offending vehicle and in that view of the
matter, the Tribunal was not supposed to decide the contributory negligence
against the deceased.
17. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 in
Ram Khiladi's case (1st supra) altogether dealt with a different issue where
the deceased was driving the offending vehicle. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
held that when the deceased was driver and met with the accident on his own
negligence, he cannot be termed as the third party. Here, the deceased was
undoubtedly a third party. Ram Khiladi's case (1st supra) has nothing to do
with the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, this Court is of
the considered view that it is reasonable to consider the income of the
deceased as Rs.2,72,000/- in accordance with the Schedule-II of the M.V. Act.
Apart from this, petitioners are entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards the funeral
expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. So the petitioners are entitled
for the compensation as follows:
Loss of dependency Rs.2,72,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.2,500/-
Total Rs.2,76,500/-
Hence, the award of the Tribunal needs interference so as to enhance
the compensation.
18. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part with proportionate costs
enhancing the compensation from that of Rs.90,900/- to Rs.2,76,500/- with
interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with
a direction to the respondent No.3 to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount of Rs.1,85,600/- within a period of one month from this date and on
such deposit the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same in equal shares.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt.26.06.2024
MH
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 26.06.2024
MH
