Telangana High Court
Chintapally Buchamma vs G Pavalkodi on 13 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.848 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional
District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter be referred as 'the Tribunal'),
in O.P.No.389 of 2013, dated 17.04.2017, the claim petitioners in
O.P filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 who is the
mother and petitioner nos.2 to 4, who are the remaining children of
petitioner No.1, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- with
costs and interest on account of death of her son-Chinthapally
Venkanna, hereinafter be referred as 'the deceased', in a motor
vehicle accident on 04.03.2013. As per the claim petitioners, on
04.03.2013, as per the instructions of the employer of the
deceased, the deceased along with Cleaner-Neelam Papaiah
boarded a DCM Van bearing No.AP-07-TA-9680 and were
proceeding towards Miryalguda and when they reached near
Anjinipuram village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District, in the
MGP,J
meantime, at about 9.30 A.M., one lorry bearing No.TN-52-D-6070
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed,
dashed the said DCM Van. As a result, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries all over the body and while shifting him to
Government Hospital, Gurajala, he died on the way. The other
inmates of the said DCM van also sustained grievous injuries and
one Neelam Papaiah also died. Based on a complaint, Police of
Piduguralla Police station registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2013
against the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-52-D-6070 for the
offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337 & 338 IPC and took
up investigation. It is further contended by the claim petitioners
that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 25 years and
was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as lorry driver and used to
contribute the same for the maintenance of his family and due to
death of the deceased, the petitioners became destitute and hence
claimed compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- under various heads
against Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of
the Lorry bearing No.TN-52-D-6070.
4. Respondent No.1 did not contest the case and remained
exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments
made in the claim petition including, age, income, avocation and
health condition of the deceased and also stated that the driver of
MGP,J
the lorry was not having valid driving license at the time of
accident and further contended that as the driver, owner and
insurer of the DCM Van were not added as parties to the claim, the
said claim petition is not maintainable that the claim of
compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the
claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the deceased by name Chinthapally Venkanna
died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
Lorry bearing No.TN-52D-6070?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1
and also got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their
behalf. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was
adduced. However, Ex.B1- Copy of insurance policy was marked.
7. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both
sides, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of
Rs.7,08,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being
MGP,J
dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the claim petitioners
preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard the submission of Smt.Annapurna Sreeram, learned
counsel for appellants/claim petitioners and Sri A.Ramakrishna
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurance
company-. Perused the record.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that though the appellants have proved their case by
adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon
Exs.A1 to A6, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the
same, had awarded meagre amount towards compensation and
hence, prayed to enhance the said compensation.
10. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent
No.2-Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after
considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation
for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now, the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
MGP,J
POINT:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
filed by both sides. Claim petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1
and reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about
the manner of accident. As she is not an eye witness to the
accident, she got examined PW2, who is a lorry driver and eye
witness to the accident and who deposed that on 04.03.2013 in the
morning hours, he boarded a DCM Van bearing No.AP-07TA-9680
at Piduguralla in order to go to Miryalguda and the deceased-
Chinthapally Venkanna along with his Cleaner-Nellam Papaiah,
also boarded the same DCM van in order to go to Miryalguda. On
the way at about 9.30 AM, when the DCM van reached
Anjinipuram Village of Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur district and
was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road, at that time,
one lorry bearing No.TN-52/D-6070 came in opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the DCM
van due to which himself, the deceased-Chinthapally Venkanna
and Cleaner-Neelam Papaiah and other inmates of DCM van
received grievous injuries. Immediately, all of them were shifted to
Government Hospital, Gurajala in '108' Ambulance. As the
condition of the deceased was very serious, he was referred to
Hyderabad and later he came to know that he died while
undergoing treatment at Hyderabad. He also stated that the
MGP,J
accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-52/D-6070 and police have
recorded his statement. Though PWs 1 & 2 are cross-examined at
length, nothing worthy was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
13. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with
documents marked under Exs.A1 to A6, the learned Tribunal had
answered issue no.1 in favour of the petitioners stating that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the lorry bearing No.TN52/D-6070 for which interference
of this Court is not necessary.
14. Now, coming to the compensation awarded, it is pertinent to
state that though PW1 claimed that the deceased used to earn
Rs.10,000/- per month, but she has not filed any documentary
proof evidencing the same. Though PW2, who is also a lorry driver,
deposed in his evidence that he is getting income of Rs.2,500/-per
month apart from commission, but the learned Tribunal felt that it
would be reasonable to fix the monthly income of the deceased @
Rs.6,000/- per month. This Court, by taking into consideration
the minimum wages that are paid to a lorry driver in the year 2013
as per G.O.Rt.No.169, dated 05.02.2013, is inclined to fix the
monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.7,436/-. As the deceased
was aged 24 years as per post-mortem examination, 40% is added
MGP,J
towards future prospects to the established income of the deceased
as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 .
Hence, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.10,410/-. Since the deceased is a Bachelor, if 50% is deducted
towards his personal expenses, then the net monthly income
comes to Rs.5,205/-. By applying relevant multiplier of '18' as per
the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation 2,the total loss of dependency comes
to Rs.11,24,280/-. Further, the appellants are also entitled for a
sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of estate and love and affection;
Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses, as awarded by the learned Tribunal which this
Court also finds reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the
same. Hence, the total compensation for which the appellants are
entitled is Rs.11,84,280 /-.
15. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,08,000/- to
Rs.11,84,280/-. The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the enhanced compensation along with
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
interest @ 7.5% p.a. within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are
entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by
the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.13.02.2024
ysk
