Telangana High Court
Nadimitti Pedda Anjaiah ... vs Neeli Laxmi 4 Others on 21 April, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.92 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, aggrieved by the award and decree, dated 30.07.2013
passed in O.P.No.176 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District
Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (for short "the Tribunal").
2. The facts, in issue, are as under:
3. The respondents herein, who are the claimants before the
Tribunal, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for
the death of one Neeli Sridhar (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred
on 24.05.2010. It is stated that on that day while the deceased
was proceeding on his motorbike, one Tractor-Trailer bearing
NO.AP 15 AC 5178/5179 driven by the appellant herein, drove it
in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against
the deceased, due to which the deceased died.
GSD, J
Macma_92_2014
4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant filed counter denied all
the material allegations and sought for strict proof and he also
denied the involvement of his tractor in the accident.
5. Before the Tribunal, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing
No.AP 15 ZC 5178/5179 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation,
if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. On behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were
examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the
appellant/respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was
marked.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was
occurred due to the negligent driving of the appellant and
accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the
appellant filed the present appeal.
GSD, J
Macma_92_2014
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the
Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor-Trailer
by the appellant, to which the Tribunal after considering the
evidence of P.W.2-eye witness coupled with the documentary
evidence, has categorically observed that the accident has
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant
and has answered in favour of the respondents/claimants and
against the appellant.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
after considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the
Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at
Rs.4,000/- per month; after deducting 1/3rd amount and
applying multiplier at '16' the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.6,00,000/-. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. No ground is
made out by the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere
with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal.
GSD, J
Macma_92_2014
Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. is devoid of merits and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________
JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
21.04.2022
gkv
