Telangana High Court

Ballem Bhadramma 3 Others vs Velagapudi Ramakrishna Another on 26 August, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.461 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 06.02.2015 passed

in M.V.O.P.No.99 of 201 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (V Additional District Judge) at Kothagudem (for short

"the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present

appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming

compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of one Ballem

Kanthaiah @ Kantha Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place

on 19.05.2012. It is stated that on 19.05.2012 while the deceased

was proceeding on his motor bike No.AP 20 M 1281 towards Enkoor

and when he reached near Saibaba Temple Road, Julurupadu, the

deceased hit the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 2147 which was parked

in a wrong direction without any precautionary measures i.e.,

without any parking indicator lights, due to which the deceased

GSD, J Macma_461_2015

sustained multiple injuries on his head and other parts of the body.

Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to

Government Area Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. It is

stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and

healthy; he was an agriculturist having Ac.5.00 of land and was

earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum by raising commercial crops like

cotton and chilly. On account of death of the deceased, the

claimants lost their source of income. The 1st respondent being the

owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the

Lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent

filed counter denying all the averments made in the claim-petition

including the manner in which the accident took place, age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that there

was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It is

further contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay

the compensation for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., insured

and insurer of the motor bike.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

GSD, J Macma_461_2015

1) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 2147?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from of which respondents?

3) To what relief?

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the Lorry and

awarded total compensation of Rs.5,21,000/- with interest @ 7.5%

per annum payable the 1st respondent only while dismissing the

claim against the Insurance Company. Dissatisfied with the

quantum of compensation and also exonerating the Insurance

Company from its liability, the claimants filed the present appeal,

seeking enhancement of the same.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Learned Counsel for the claimants would submit that the

Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its

GSD, J Macma_461_2015

liability. It is also submitted that as per the principles laid down

by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are also entitled to the

future prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads.

10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company would

submit that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of

the deceased.

11. Insofar as the manner in which the accident took place is

concerned, 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 vehicle by the

driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 2147, to which the Tribunal

after considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the

documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the

accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the

driver of the Lorry and has answered in favour of the claimants and

against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere

with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J Macma_461_2015

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP

16 TV 2147.

12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is

not in dispute that the deceased was an agriculturist. In Latha

Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar2 the Apex Court held that even there

is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably

estimated. Since the deceased was aged about 36 years and he

was able bodied person and as per the material available on

record, the deceased was an agriculturist, this Court inclined to

take the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Apart

from the same, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40%

towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, monthly

income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- +

Rs.1800/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation3 as the dependents are four in number.

After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living

expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be

(2001) 8 SCC 197

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_461_2015

Rs.4,725/- per month. As per Ex.A4-P.M.E. Report, the deceased

was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '15' as per the decision reported in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting

multiplier '15', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.4,725/- x

12 x 15 = Rs.8,50,500.00. The claimants are also entitled to

Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's

case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

Rs.9,27,500/-.

13. Coming to the aspect of liability of payment of

compensation, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

the Insurance Company is that the driver of the Lorry was not

having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. As seen

from the material available on record the Insurance Company

neither examined the driver of the Lorry nor produced the driving

licence of the driver of the Lorry. Apart from that, the accident

occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the lorry in

parking the vehicle in the middle of the road without taking any

precautions. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated

the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation

as the Insurance Company failed to examine the driver of the lorry

GSD, J Macma_461_2015

or produce the driving licence of the driver of the offending

vehicle.

14. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company

submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as

compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now

awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible

under law.

15. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another4, the Apex

Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh5 held as

under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

16. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to

above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_461_2015

has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a

beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants

is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour

to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable

extent.

17. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,21,000/-