Telangana High Court

M.Nagaraju And 4 Others vs K Takeswar Rao And 2 Others on 20 March, 2023

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

       M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2991 OF 2017 AND 3396 OF 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT:

       These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017, filed by the

Reliance      General    Insurance      Company       Limited   and

M.A.C.M.A.No.3396 of 2017 filed by claimants challenging the

quantum of compensation, are directed against the very same

award and decree, dated 18.08.2017 made in M.V.O.P.No.2032

of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Tribunal-

cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for

short "the Tribunal").


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

referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.


3.     The facts, in brief, are that the claimants laid a claim

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

compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one M.Anitha,

wife of claimant No. 1, mother of claimant Nos. 2 & 3, daughter-

in-law of claimant Nos. 4 & 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"),    who   died   in   the   accident that occurred    on

24.05.2015.     According to the claimants, on the fateful day,

while the deceased, along with her daughter and husband, was
                                   2                                  MGP, J
                                              Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017




proceeding    by   walk    towards    Darga     near    Anjali   Theatre,

Secunderabad and when she reached near Balamrai Khaman,

Begumpet, at about 06:00 a.m., one Mini Bus bearing No.AP 28

TB 0511 proceeding from Paradise towards Bowenpally, came

on wrong side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and

dashed the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell

down on the road and received fatal injuries. Immediately, she

was taken to Sunshine Hospital and later, shifted to Gandhi

Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein the deceased succumbed to the

injuries while undergoing treatment. On a complaint, a case in

Crime No.284 of 2015 was registered under Section 304(A) IPC.

According    to    the   claimants,   the   deceased      was     earning

Rs.15,000/- as a tailor and construction labour. On account of

the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their

bread winner and love and affection.          Therefore, they laid the

claim against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the driver,

owner and insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., Mini Bus bearing

No.AP 28 TB 0511.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 remained

ex parte. Respondent No.3, insurance company filed counter

stating that the respondent No.1 did not possess valid driving

licence and respondent No. 2 did not possess valid documents 3 MGP, J Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017

and denied all the averments made in the claim-petition,

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

avocation and earnings of the deceased. It is specifically

contended that the accident occurred only due to the

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and prays to

dismiss the petition.

5. After considering claim and counter filed by the

respondent No. 3 and the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred

due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Mini Bus

and has awarded an amount of Rs.16,83,000/- with interest at

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

realisation. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to

be filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants

respectively.

6. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material

available on record.

7. The main contention raised by the learned Standing

Counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in

M.A.C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017) is that the Tribunal did not

consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective 4 MGP, J Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017

and erroneously held that the accident had occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini bus. In fact,

the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on

the part of the deceased, who was walking on the road without

observing the moving vehicles on the road. Therefore, the

Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence

even on the part of the deceased. As regards the quantum of

compensation, although the claimants failed to prove the

income of the deceased by producing cogent documentary

evidence, the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the

deceased at Rs.72,000/- per annum. Therefore, the Tribunal

has granted excessive and exorbitant compensation, which

needs to be reduced. It is lastly contended that inasmuch as

the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and

effective driving license, the Tribunal ought to have fastened

liability only on the driver and owner of the vehicle by

exonerating the Insurance Company.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants (appellants

in M.A.C.M.A.No.3396 of 2017), has contended that since the

claimants have asserted that the deceased was working as tailor

and construction labour, in the absence of any contra evidence,

the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at 5 MGP, J Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017

Rs.15,000/- per month. As regards the contributory negligence,

it is contended that in light of evidence of P.W.1 and the

documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A.1 and A.2, the Tribunal has

rightly held that there was no contributory negligence on the

part of the deceased and the same needs no interference.

9. As regards the manner of accident, it is the main

contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance

Company (appellant in MACMA No. 2991 of 2017) that the

accident occurred due to the contributory negligence even on

the part of the deceased as the deceased came on the road as

pedestrian without observing the moving traffic and therefore,

the Tribunal should have apportioned contributory negligence.

As seen from the record, Ex.A.1, FIR, was registered against the

driver of the crime vehicle. Further, after due investigation into

the crime, police laid the charge sheet, Ex.A.2, against the

driver of the offending vehicle 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

IPC. That apart, P.W.1, the eyewitness to the accident, who was

also co-walker along with the deceased, clearly stated that the

accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of

the Mini bus by its driver. Though it is the case of the 6 MGP, J Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017

Insurance Company that there was contributory negligence on

the part of the deceased, for the reasons best known to it, the

Insurance Company did not take any steps to summon the

driver of the offending bus to prove that there was contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased, who is the best person to

speak in this regard. Further, no contra evidence was elicited in

the cross-examination of P.W. 1, eyewitness to the accident to

discredit his testimony. Therefore, considering the evidence of

P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 & A.2, FIR and charge sheet, the Tribunal

has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the rash

and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and as such, the

contention of learned standing counsel for the Insurance

Company is hereby rejected.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the

case of the claimants is that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/-

per month as tailor and construction labour. However, in

support of their claim, no documentary evidence is adduced.

Considering the evidence and duly taking into consideration the

age of the deceased the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of

the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, applying multiplier '18'

as the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of the

accident, awarded the total compensation of Rs.16,83,000/-

                                 7                                MGP, J
                                          Macma_2991_2017 and 3396_2017




which cannot be said to be on higher side.           Although it is

contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance

Company that the amount awarded by the tribunal under the

conventional heads is on higher side, in view of the fact that no

future prospects were taken into consideration by the Tribunal,

this Court is not inclined to disturb the said amount. As

regards the liability, except the self-serving statement that the

driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving

license, no evidence in that regard was let in before the Tribunal

and hence, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said contention.

Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the award passed by

the Tribunal.

11. Accordingly, both the M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2991 of 2017 and