Telangana High Court
Smt.Nanavath Rani And 5 Ors vs Sreepathi Narsimha Reddy And Anr on 19 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A. No.857 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants aggrieved
by the order, dated 23.11.2012, in O.P.No.446 of 2009 passed by
the Principal District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar,
Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. The grievance of the appellants/claimants is that the
Tribunal has granted only 50% of the compensation as claimed
by them, on the ground that there was an element of
contributory negligence on behalf of the deceased.
3. The brief facts of the case are that while the deceased who
was returning home on his motorcycle from Meerpet village and
when he reached near Virat Nagar, opposite Shilpi Kitchen, in
the mid night at about 12.00 hours, respondent No.1 drove his
vehicle in the opposite direction in high speed and in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to
which, the deceased fell down and died on the spot due to the
head injury.
4. The facts regarding accident, income of the deceased and
other aspects as claimed by the claimants, are not disputed.
However, the Tribunal has found that the vehicles were in the
middle of the road, for which reason, it can be safely assumed
that there was head-on collision resulting in contributory
negligence of the deceased/driver. The Tribunal relied on the
scene of offence panchanama i.e. Exhibit-A.4 and also the
evidence of RW-1/Chandrashekar Reddy was legal retainer of
the Insurance company. According to his evidence, had the
deceased been cautious, he could have avoided the accident and
it is apparent that the there was contributory negligence on the
part of deceased in driving his motorcycle, for which reason, the
claim has to be dismissed.
5. Having gone through the evidence of RW-1 and also
Exhibit-A.4 - scene of offence panchanama, both the vehicles are
shown to have fallen on the left side of the road and blood stains
on the right side. It is not the case that the vehicles were shifted
where the accident had taken place. When both the vehicles are
shown as fallen on the left side of the road, the question of there
being contributory negligence on the part of the deceased does
not arise. It is not a case where the deceased had driven his
vehicle on the right side of the road. PW.2 - eye witness to the
accident, had specifically stated that it was a 20 feet wide single
road where the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction
and hit the vehicle of the deceased, resulting in the deceased
falling down on the road due to which he received head injuries
and instantaneous death.
6. The finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased is without any basis for
the reasons mentioned above. The evidence of RW-1 is on the
basis of assumption and Exhibit-A.4, as he was not present at
the scene. In the background of both the vehicles being found on
the left side of the road in which direction the deceased was
travelling, it cannot be said that the deceased contributed to the
accident. In the said circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal
to the extent that there was contributory negligence on the part
of the deceased is hereby set aside.
7. Since the contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased is disbelieved by this Court, the quantum of
compensation arrived at by the Tribunal at Rs.25 lakhs is
upheld. The direction of the Tribunal regarding apportionment of
the compensation amount and other aspects shall remain
unaltered.
8. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded
by the Tribunal from Rs.12,50,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/-. The
difference amount shall be deposited by the respondent Nos.1
and 2 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. The enhanced compensation amount
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till realization. On such deposit, claimants are permitted
to withdraw the amount without furnishing the security.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
______________
K.SURENDER
Date: 19.02.2024
KTM/BMS
