United India Insurance Co Ltd ... vs Gangidi Kavitha 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7020 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No. 329 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the United India Insurance

Company Limited, questioning the award and decree, dated

29.12.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 835 of 2011 on the file of the

Principal Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal

(for short, the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are

referred to as per their array before the tribunal.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for

the death of the deceased, Gangidi Sudhakar Reddy, who died

in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.03.2011.

According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the

deceased was proceeding to Simhachalam from his village, along

with others, in a Toofan Jeep, when the Jeep reached Arempula

Village, at about 12:30 a.m. on 04-03-2011, the offending

vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No. AP 16U 7947, owned by

respondent No. 1, insured with respondent Nos. 2 & 3, being

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent driving at high

MGP, J Macma_329_2015

speed, dashed the Jeep. As a result, the deceased sustained

severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries while being

shifted to hospital. According to the claimants, the deceased

was 27 years, earning Rs.10,000/- per month doing agricultural

and as contractor and therefore, they laid the claim for Rs.10.00

lakhs against the respondents towards compensation under

different heads.

Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No. 1, owner of

the lorry stood ex parte, the Insurance Company, respondent

Nos. 2 & 3 contested the claim denying the averments of the

claim petition, including the age, avocation and income of the

deceased and contended that the amount claimed is excessive

and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Considering the claim, counter and the evidence, both

oral and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has

allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.8,83,000/-

towards compensation with interest at 7.5% thereon to be paid

by the respondents jointly and severally. Hence, the insurance

company filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of

compensation.

MGP, J Macma_329_2015

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company contends inter alia that the tribunal did not consider

the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and

erroneously held that the accident had occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. In fact, it is a

head-on collision and the accident took place due to the

contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e.,

lorry and the Jeep in which the deceased was travelling; that

there was 50% of contributory negligence on the part of driver of

the Jeep and therefore, due to non-joinder of the necessary

parties i.e., owner of the Jeep as well as its insurer, the tribunal

ought to have dismissed the O.P. It is lastly contended that

although there was no documentary evidence to prove the

monthly income of the deceased, the tribunal has erroneously

fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the claimants-respondents, has contended that the

compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal,

considering the avocation and age of the deceased, is reasonable

MGP, J Macma_329_2015

and needs no interference by this Court. Even on the point of

contributory negligence, it is contended that the tribunal duly

considering the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A.1, A.5 & A.6

and P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident, categorically held

that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and

therefore, the said findings need no interference by this Court.

Hence, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

In this appeal, it is the main contention of the learned

Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the

accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part

of both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident and

therefore, the tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory

negligence on both the drivers and due to non-joinder of owner

and insurer of the Jeep, the tribunal ought to have restricted

the liability of the appellant at 50% only. As seen from the

record, Ex.A.1, FIR, was registered against the driver of the

crime vehicle based on the complaint lodged by P.W.2, who is

also an inmate of the Jeep and injured who witnessed the

accident. Further, after due investigation into the crime, police

laid the charge sheet against the driver of the offending lorry

MGP, J Macma_329_2015

stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle and the driver was charged for

the offence under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and Section 187

of the Motor Vehicles Act. That apart, P.W.2, the eyewitness to

the accident, clearly stated that the accident occurred only due

to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The

Insurance Company did not take any steps to summon the

driver of the offending lorry to prove that there was contributory

negligence on the part of both the drivers, who is the best

person to speak in this regard. Further, no contra evidence was

elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 2, eyewitness to the

accident. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and

Exs.A.1, A.5 & A.6, FIR, M.V.I. Report and charge sheet, the

tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to

the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, which

needs no interference by this Court.

As regards the quantum of compensation, although the

claimants claimed that the deceased was contractor, doing

agriculture and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, as no

supportive evidence was adduced by the claimants, the tribunal

has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at

MGP, J Macma_329_2015

Rs.6,000/-, after deducting 1/4th there from towards personal

expenses and duly applying multiplier '16' considering the age

of the deceased as 32 years, and by awarding conventional

heads, the tribunal has awarded the compensation to the

claimants. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said

to be adequate. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the

order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the

award and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 27.12.2022 Tsr

MGP, J Macma_329_2015

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 329 of 2015

DATE:27-12-2022