Telangana High Court
Enugu Narsaiah Narsi Reddy ... vs Gollapalli Anil Another on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.2870 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2870 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated
31.08.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1055 of 2010 on the file of
the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the
Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of
the death of their son Enugu Raju (hereinafter referred to as
'deceased'.) It is stated that on 12.07.2009, the deceased
boarded the Trailer of a Tractor bearing No.AP-20-Y-6538 and
AP-20-Y T/R 6425 (offending vehicle) to bring diesel from
Kampalli Village and on the way, between 3.00 and 4.00 p.m,
2 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2870 of 2014
when the offending vehicle reached the outskirts of
Bheeliyanaik Thanda, a hamlet of Kampally, its driver has
driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, at high
speed and lost control over the steering of the Tractor, as a
result of which, the offending vehicle overturned, due to
which, the deceased sustained severe fracture injuries and
died in the midway to hospital. The deceased was aged 21
years at the time of the accident, used to work as a labourer-
cum-helper and earned Rs.5.000/- per month. Due to loss of
dependency, the parents of the deceased filed the claim
petition.
4. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte and respondent
No.2 filed counter denying the allegations in the petition.
5. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined
PWs.1 and 2 and marked Ex.A1 to A6. The 2nd respondent got
examined RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs. B1 and B2. Ex.
X1 and X2 are marked separately.
3 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2870 of 2014
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the
Tribunal found that the petitioners were entitled to
Rs.2,67,000/- towards compensation and only the 1st
respondent/owner of the Tractor was made liable to pay the
same. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company was
exonerated from liability on the grounds that the deceased
was an unauthorised/gratuitous passenger and the vehicle in
which he was commuting, was solely for the purpose of
carrying goods, meaning thereby that the claim petition was
allowed in part only against the 1st respondent and dismissed
against the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is filed by the petitioners.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. There is
no appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent. Perused the
record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition against the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company. He further contended that
4 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2870 of 2014
the Tribunal ought to have at least ordered for 'pay and
recovery' by the 2nd respondent instead of completely
exempting the latter from liability. He also contended that
the petitioners are entitled for just compensation and also
compensation under the conventional heads as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal
was justified in dismissing the claim against the 2nd
respondent and reiterated the stand taken before the
Tribunal. He further contended that the present case is not a
fit case where 'pay and recovery' can be ordered.
Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having considered the rival submissions of both
parties, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal was
justified in dismissing the claim petition against the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company as the deceased was an
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
5 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2870 of 2014
unauthorised/gratuitous passenger and the vehicle in which
he was commuting, was solely for the purpose of carrying
goods and the Tribunal has cautiously examined and
discussed a number of judgments which supported the
decision of the Tribunal.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anu Bhanvara vs.
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company2 wherein, even
in the case of compensation awarded involving in
injuries/death of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle,
the compensation was payable by the insurer and was at
liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
After thoroughly going through the above decision, this Court
is of the view that the same cannot be applied to the present
case in view of the following observation of the Apex Court:
"11. ...... The claimants in the present case are young
children who have suffered permanent disability on
account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus,
keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
(2020) 20 SCC 632.
6 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2870 of 2014
this case, we are of the considered view that the principle
of "pay and recover" should be directed to be invoked in
the present case."
The facts in the present case differ with that of the above
cited case. Hence, the argument of the petitioners cannot be
considered and the appeal is liable to be dismissed against
the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
12. This Court would now deal with the quantum of the
awarded compensation. The petitioners were granted
Rs.2,67,000/- and the same is interfered with in the following
manner:
Head Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at
the Tribunal by this Court
Salary of deceased Rs.3,000/- p.m Rs.3,000/- p.m
Annual income after Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/-
deducting 50% as (Rs.3,000 x 12 - 50%) (Rs.3,000 x 12 - 50%)
deceased was a bachelor
Future prospects Nil Rs.7,200/- (40% to
be taken as per
Pranay Sethi)
Age Multiplier "14" (Mother's age "18" (As per Sarla
taken as per Trilok Verma)
Chandra)
Loss of dependency Rs.2,52,000/- Rs.4,53,600/-
(18,000/- x 14) (Rs.25,200/- x 18)
excluding future including future
prospects. prospects
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.16,500/-
7 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2870 of 2014
(Rs.15,000/- + 10%
as per Pranay Sethi)
Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10%
as per Pranay Sethi)
Loss of Filial Consortium Nil Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- to each
petitioner as per
Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram)
Total Rs.2,67,000/- Rs.5,66,600/-
13. Though the claimed amount is Rs.4,00,000/-, invoking
the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh3,
this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the
claimed amount.
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is disposed of by
enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,67,000/- to
Rs.5,66,600/- (Rupees Five Lakh Sixty Six Thousand and six
hundred Only) with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of
petition till the date of realization which is payable only by
the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle. This M.A.C.M.A is
dismissed against the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
MANU/SC/0480/2013
8 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2870 of 2014
The 1st respondent shall deposit the said compensation
amount together with interest and costs within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court
fee within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. In respect of apportionment, the order of the
Tribunal holds good. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
1st day of March, 2023
BDR
