Cholamandalam M.S. General ... vs Yamsani Sridevi
2022 Latest Caselaw 6104 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No. 1555 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal

District Judge, Karimnagar, in M.V.O.P.No.666 of 2015 dated

08.05.2018, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company

Limited has filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to

as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the petitioners' case are that on 26.06.2013, the

deceased Kumari Yamsani Sravanthi boarded an auto bearing No. AP

15 TB 5925 at Jammikunta and was proceeding to Huzurabad to meet

her mother and on the way near Indiranagar H/o Chalpur Village at

about 11-00 A.M., the auto was driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed and when he tried to avoid a dog, it

went and hit a motorcyclist and the auto turned turtle. Due to which,

the deceased fell down and received several injuries all over the body

and she was given preliminary treatment at Guardian Hospital,

MGP,J Macma_1555_2019

Warangal and she succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment

at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on 28.06.2013. According to the

petitioners, the deceased was aged 22 years, working as Manager in

Pavan Motors, Hero Honda Showroom, Jammikunta and was earning

Rs.12,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioners claimed compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/- under various heads.

4. Respondent No.1 though appeared before the Tribunal, did not

file counter. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further

contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly

excessive and prays to dismiss the petition.

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

following issues:

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP.15.TB.5925 by its driver or due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing No. AP.15.AG.4689?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

MGP,J Macma_1555_2019

3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 to X3 got marked on behalf of the

petitioners. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and

Exs.B1 was marked.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,51,660/- towards

compensation to the claimants against the respondent Nos.1 and 2

jointly and severally, along with proportionate costs and interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of

actual deposit.

8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company and the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to

4/claimants. Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company contended that the decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law,

MGP,J Macma_1555_2019

weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the

Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the appellant-Insurance

Company and the amount awarded is exorbitant. Accordingly, prayed

for setting aside the impugned order in the O.P.

10. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1

to 4-claimants submitted that the Tribunal after considering the oral

and documentary evidence available on record, has awarded

reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this

Court. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

11. With regard to the manner of accident, the learned Standing

counsel for the Insurance Company pleaded that there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and in

support of their contention the driver-cum-owner of the auto was

examined as RW-1 and he stated that when a dog came on the way he

tried to avoid it and thus his auto hit the motorcycle, whereby the auto

turned turtle and the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and

died while undergoing treatment. This part of his evidence itself

MGP,J Macma_1555_2019

clearly shows that the accident had taken place due to his fault only.

Further the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 coupled with the documentary

evidence available on record clearly shows that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.

Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the auto.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned,

according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 22 years, working

as Manager in Pavan Motors, Hero Honda Showroom, Jammikunta

and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and the same was also

supported by the employer of the deceased who was examined as

PW.2. However, since Ex.X-2 Salary Register maintained by PW-2

shows that the normal wage payable to the deceased was Rs.10,000/-

and for overtime work, the employees are being used to pay extra

remuneration. Therefore, considering Ex.X-2, the tribunal rightly

taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, added

40% of future prospectus on it and by deducting 50% towards

personal and living expenses of the deceased who is a bachelor,

awarded an amount of Rs.15,12,200/- towards loss of dependency.

MGP,J Macma_1555_2019

Further the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards

transportation charges, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses,

Rs.14,660/- towards medical expenses and in total, the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.15,51,660/-, which is just and reasonable.

13. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto and the

same was insured with the respondent No.2, the respondent Nos.1 and

2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore,

in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there

are no valid grounds to interfere with the cogent findings given by the

Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

23.11.2022 pgp