Telangana High Court

Boddu Shankar 3 Others vs Manchala Srinivas Another on 10 November, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

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

                       M.A.C.M.A.No.4190 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved

by the award and decree, dated 30.07.2014 passed in O.P.No.63

of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar

at Jagtial (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Boddu Rajesh (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle

accident that occurred on 09.05.2012. It is stated that on

09.05.2012 while the deceased, along with his friend Kasarapu

Suresh, was returning to Jagtial on a motorcycle after attending

some work at Polasa and when they reached near the electrical

sub-station situated at the outskirts of Kalleda Village, the

offending tractor attached with trailer being driven by

respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent at high speed dashed

MGP, J Macma_4190_2014

the motorcycle, due to which the deceased died instantaneously

and the pillion rider Kasarapu Naresh sustained grievous

injuries. It is also stated that the deceased was aged about 19

years and was attending petty works and used to earn

Rs.40,000/- per annum. As the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer, the

claimants filed the claim-petition against the respondent Nos.1

and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed

common counter denying all the allegations, including the

manner in which the accident occurred. They denied the very

involvement of the tractor-trailer in the accident and it is stated

that the tractor was parked near sub-station of Kalleda by the

side of the road due to some defect and respondent No.1 did not

drive the tractor on that particular day. It is further stated that

the deceased was aged about 15 years as on the date of the

accident and he was in intoxicated condition on that date, due

to which he lost control and slipped from the bike and fell down,

sustained head injury, which resulted his instantaneous death.

It is also contended that initially the police registered a crime

against one Nallella Ganganna and thereafter charge sheet was

MGP, J Macma_4190_2014

filed against respondent No.1 stating that he drove the offending

tractor-trailer at the time of the accident in collusion with the

police. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor- Trailer bearing No.AP 15 AW 6104/AP 1 U 7783?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6. The impugned award discloses that subsequently, issue

No.1 was re-casted stating that the claim was made under

Section 163-A of M.V.Act, which reads as under:-

1. Whether there is any involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 15 AW 6104/AP-1-U- 7783 in the alleged accident?

7. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was

examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the

respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined but no documents

were marked.

MGP, J Macma_4190_2014

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition

holding that based on the evidence of R.W.3, who was shown as

eyewitness to the accident in the charge sheet, there is no

involvement of the tractor bearing No.AP 15 AW 6104 in causing

the accident and the said tractor-trailer was falsely implicated.

Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants filed the present

appeal.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is

whether the claimants have proved the involvement of the

Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 15 AW 6104/AP1U 7783 in the

accident and, if so, what is the just and reasonable

compensation to which the claimants are entitled to?

10. It is the case of the claimants that on 09.05.2012 while

the deceased, along with his friend, was proceeding on

motorcycle and when they reached near the electrical sub-

station situated at the outskirts of Kalleda Village, the offending

tractor-trailer bearing No.AP15 AW 6104/AP 1 U 7783 driven by

MGP, J Macma_4190_2014

respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed

and dashed the motorbike, due to which the deceased died on

the spot and the pillion rider, Kasarapu Naresh, sustained

injuries. It is no doubt true that initially, the crime was

registered against one Nallela Ganganna as the driver of the

offending vehicle. The contents of Ex.A.1, FIR and the contents

of Ex.A.2, inquest panchanama, reveal that a numberless

tractor attached with trailer bearing No. AP 1U 7783 driven by

one Nallella Ganganna in rash and negligent driving, caused the

accident. However, during the course of investigation, after

examining the eyewitnes, one Manchala Mallesham, the Police

came to know that in fact, the respondent No. 1 was driving the

tractor bearing No. AP 15AW 6104 attached with trailer bearing

No. AP 1U 7783 in rash and negligent manner and it is he who

had caused the accident but not Nallella Ganganna. Thus, the

police after recording the statement of Manchala Mallesham,

came to know not only the involvement of the tractor and trailer

belonging to the respondent No. 2 but also its driver being the

respondent No. 1, but not Nallella Ganganna. Therefore, after

completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against

respondent No.1. However, the tribunal did not consider

MGP, J Macma_4190_2014

Ex.A.3, charge sheet holding that though the claimats have

exhibited the entire crime record, but for the reasons best

known, they have not exhibited Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement

of R.W.3, Manchala Mallesham, on whose statement, during the

course of investigation, the Police came to know that the

respondent No. 1 was driving the tractor that belonged to the

respondent No. 2.

11. In this regard, it is to be noticed that in a claim for

compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

the claimants have to prove the incident only on preponderance

of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable

doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the decision rendered in Bimla Devi Vs. Himachal Road

Transport Corporation1. After the investigation and based on

the eyewitness statement, the investigating officer has filed

charge sheet against respondent Nos.1 and 2. In view of above

reasons, the tribunal ought to have held that the deceased died

due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor by

respondent No.1. Hence, this Court holds that the accident

occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the

AIR 2009 SC 2819

MGP, J Macma_4190_2014

tractor and trailer owned by respondent No. 2, being driven by

respondent No.1, who is none other the son of respondent No. 2.

12. Since this Court has decided that it is the driver of the

Tractor-Trailer that has caused the accident, now this Court is

inclined to determine the compensation based on the evidence

adduced before the Tribunal treating the O.P. as has been filed

under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The record reveals that no

documentary evidence has been adduced by the claimants to

prove that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum.

In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar2, the Apex Court held

that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be

reasonably estimated minimum at Rs.3,000/- per month for any

non-earning member. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take

the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- 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 National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others3. Therefore, monthly income of the

deceased comes to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-). Since

(2001) 8 SCC 197

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_4190_2014

the deceased was a bachelor, his personal living expenses shall

be 50% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.2,100/- per month and after

deducting the same, the net monthly income of the deceased

comes to Rs.2,100/-. Since the age of the deceased was 19

years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is

'18' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another4. Adopting multiplier

18, his total loss of earnings would be Rs.2,100/- x 12 x 18,

which comes to Rs.4,53,600/-. That apart, the claimants are

also entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral

expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Thus, in all the

claimants are entitled to Rs.4,86,600/-.

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

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another5, the

Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh6

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

(2009) 6 SCC 121

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_4190_2014

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."

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

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

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.

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the

award and decree, dated 30.07.2014 passed in O.P.No.63 of

2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar

at Jagtial. The appellants/claimants are awarded compensation