Kondapally Bhudevi vs Ankalamma Gollakaram
2023 Latest Caselaw 4057 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU


                     M.A.C.M.A.NO.311 of 2020

JUDGMENT :

The appellants herein are the petitioners in MVOP.No.768 of

2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum I Addl.

District Judge, Nizamabad and they filed this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal against the order in MVOP.No.768 of 2014 dated

20-02-2017, where under the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.13,25,000/- against their claim for Rs.15,00,000/-, filed this

miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for

short 'M.V.Act') on the following grounds.

2. The Tribunal committed an error by allowing their

petition in part and by awarding Rs.13,25,000/- though they have

claimed Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have observed that

the deceased suffered multiple fractures, grievous injuries and

died on the spot when he met with a motor accident and ought to

have seriously considered that the deceased was holding Ac.02-00

gts of land and doing agriculture but considered the income of the

deceased as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum on the basis of the report of

Revenue Officer. The Tribunal committed a gross error by

assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum

SSRN,J MACMA.No.311 of 2020

which works out to Rs.8,333/- per month in spite of their claim

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

The Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the

deceased and did not consider the medical expenses, loss of

estate, loss of care and guidance for minor children and awarded

less compensation, thereby, they prayed for enhancement of the

amount from Rs.13,25,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. The following was the case of appellants herein before

the Tribunal as per MVOP.No.768 of 2014. The appellants have

claimed that Kondapally Pentanna (herein after will be referred as

'deceased') who is husband of the first appellant, father of

appellants No.2 and 3, son of the remaining appellants was an

agriculturist with agricultural lands and he used to earn

Rs.5,00,000/- per annum by the agriculture. He used to obtain

lands on lease. On 27-11-2014 at about 10.00 p.m., while the

deceased was proceeding on a motor-cycle along with one

Rasari Sayanna, since the driver of a lorry bearing No.

AP16-TT-2329 left the lorry in the middle of the road without

arranging any signals or indicators, dashed the said lorry and

received multiple fractures and grievous injuries due to which he

died on the spot. It seems the deceased was a pillion rider of the

said bike. The above referred Sayanna who was also riding the

SSRN,J MACMA.No.311 of 2020

bike also died on the spot. The appellants have claimed that they

spent Rs.1,00,000/- for transporting the dead body. The

appellants having claimed that the deceased was earning

Rs.40,000/- per annum on agriculture, dairy business and sought

for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation. The said

petition was filed against the owner i.e., insurer and insurance

company from which he has obtained a policy against the Lorry.

4. The first respondent opposed the petition, filed a

counter stating that there was no rash or negligent act on the part

of the driver and sought for dismissal of the petition. The second

respondent - insurance company also opposed the petition stating

that the rider of the motor-bike was not having valid and

subsisting valid driving license. The accident occurred due to his

own negligence and the compensation claimed by the appellants

herein is excessive. The Tribunal framed the following four

issues :

1. Whether on 27-11-2014 at about 10.00 p.m., in the limits of Manikbhandar Village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.AP16-TT-2329 by its driver?

2. Whether Kondapally Pentanna received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

4. To what relief?

SSRN,J MACMA.No.311 of 2020

5. During the enquiry, the wife of the deceased had been

examined as PW.1, two more witnesses were examined as PWs.2

and 3. They filed Exs.A1 to A15. The respondents did not

examine any witnesses but marked copy of the insurance policy

as Ex.B1.

6. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the appellants

herein about the rash and negligent act of the driver of lorry

resulting the death of the deceased. The Tribunal has also

considered the claim of appellants that the deceased was the elder

member of the family but assessed the income of the deceased as

Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and having considered the other

contentions raised by the appellants awarded a sum of

Rs.13,25,000/- which can be apportioned on all the appellants.

7. Heard both parties.

8. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Tribunal committed any error by awarding Rs.13,25,000/- against the claim filed by the appellants for Rs.15,00,000/- if so, whether there are grounds to enhance the compensation?

9. The appellants herein have filed this appeal only on the

ground that the Tribunal failed to award appropriate compensation.

The respondents who have contested the petition filed by the

appellants herein did not file any cross appeal nor there was any

SSRN,J MACMA.No.311 of 2020

challenge against the findings recorded by the Court below. The

main grounds on which the appellants sought for enhancement of

the compensation is the evidence of PW.2 and the learned counsel

for the appellants has also claimed that the Court below did not

add any amount towards future prospects of the deceased.

10. There is no dispute about the main occupation of the

deceased being agriculturist. According to the claim filed by the

appellants and as per the evidence produced by them, it is their

contention that the appellant has got Ac.02-00 gts of land and he

was an agriculturist. In order to prove the income as

Rs.5,00,000/- per annum, the appellants have examined one

Miryala Thirupathi as PW.2. As per the findings recorded by the

Court below, PW.2 deposed before the Court that he was an

employee in Seed Committee and had got acquaintance with the

deceased. The deceased was an agriculturist and he used to earn

Rs.5,00,000/-. However, in the cross-examination, when it was

suggested that he was not an employee in a Seed Committee and

created Exs.A11 and A12, he denied the suggestion. Exs.A6 and

A12 are the pahanies and lease agreement under which the

deceased said to have obtained some lands on lease.

11. The appellants did not file any tax returns or

authenticated proof to believe that the deceased used to earn

SSRN,J MACMA.No.311 of 2020

more than Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. In fact since the deceased

was an agriculturist, the appellants cannot claim that they lost the

income which the deceased said to have earned because the lands

are still in the possession of the legal representatives. Therefore,

some amount of compensation can be granted only for the

services of the deceased and the Court below considered the issue

and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,00,000/- per

annum. The said finding is based on the report of Revenue Officer.

Since the income of the deceased was not a fixed one and was

based on the agriculture, the appellants cannot claim that they are

entitled to 40% of the said income as future prospects. The

Tribunal has considered the other contentions and awarded

appropriate amounts towards funeral expenses, consortium, loss of

love thereby, there are no grounds to interfere with the said

findings or to enhance the compensation. Therefore, the appeal is

liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.

__________________________ b JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date: 16.11.2023 PLV