Telangana High Court
K. Govindamma vs Gudur Anil Kumar Reddy on 24 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1739 of 2018 J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the dismissal Order
dated 14.02.2018 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition
No.1504 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil
Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the
appellants-claimants preferred the present Appeal praying
this Court to set aside the impugned Order.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array before the
Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos.1
to 3 filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, who are parents and brother of Sri K. Teja Murthy
(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), claiming
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest on account
of death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
occurred on 23.01.2014.
2
04. According to the petitioners, on 23.01.2014, the
deceased and his cousin by name K. Sudhakar were
standing by the side of the road on ORR at APPA Junction
and were waiting to cross the road, at that time, Car
bearing No.AP 28 BP 4509 came in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed and hit the deceased, as a result,
he sustained fatal injuries and died on the way to Premier
Hospital. Based on the complaint, the Police, Narsingi
registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2014 for the offence
under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners who
are parents and brother of the deceased claimed
compensation of Rs 20,00,000/- along with interest.
05. Respondent No.1 remained exparte.
Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of
the claim petition and further denied age, income, manner
of accident and further contended that there is no rash and
negligence on the part of the car driver and accident
occurred only due to negligence of the deceased and his
cousin, who were trying to cross the express highway
without following traffic rules, thus they contributed to the 3
accident. The claim of the petitioners is excessive and
prayed to dismiss the claim of the petitioners against it.
06. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners got
examined petitioner No.2 as PW1 and Eyewitness to the
accident as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf
of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced and
Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance Policy is marked.
07. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
i. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased due to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing No. AP 28 BP 4509 by its driver?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
iii. To what relief?
08. Considering the claim of the claimants and
counter filed by respondent No.2 and on evaluation of oral
and documentary evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the
Motor Vehicle Original Petition.
4
09. Challenging the same, the claimants have filed
this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of Insurance Company-respondent No.2.
Perused the material available on record.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for
appellants-petitioners is that though the petitioners have
proved the case by adducing cogent and convincing
evidence and also relying on relevant documents, but the
Tribunal without considering the same properly, dismissed
the claim application of the petitioners. Hence, he prayed
to allow this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by
setting the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the
Tribunal.
12. On the other hand, the learned Standing
Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance company has
contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed
the claim application after taking into consideration entire
evidence and the same needs no interference by this Court. 5
13. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the dismissal Order dated 14.02.2018 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.1504 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, is liable to be set aside?
P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
15. Petitioner No.2 who is father of the deceased is
examined as PW1 reiterated the contents of the claim
application and he is not eyewitness to the said accident,
hence he got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the
accident who deposed that on 23.01.2014, he and his
nephew (deceased) were standing by the side of the road on
ORR at APPA Junction and waiting for a lift, at that time a
Car bearing No.AP 28 BP 4509 came in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and hit his nephew, as a
result, he sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on
the way to hospital. During the cross-examination, he
stated that he does not know whether his name was added
in the charge sheet and it was suggested that as there was 6
no walking path they trespassed and that they were not
supposed to stand at that place and also suggested that
willfully charge sheet is not filed as there was negligence on
the part of the deceased. Petitioners apart from oral
evidence, got marked Exs.A1 to A8. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR
disclosed that based on a complaint the Police, Narsingi
registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2014 for the offence
under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and took up
investigation. Ex.A2-Inquest report shows that the
panchas have opined that while the deceased and one
Sudhakar were standing at APPA Junction, a Car bearing
No. AP 28 BP 4509 came in a rash and negligent manner
with high speed and hit the deceased, due which he
sustained severe injuries and died while being shifted to
the hospital. Ex.A3-Postmortem Examination Report
shows that the cause of death is due to multiple injuries.
16. It is pertinent to state that the learned Tribunal
has dismissed the claim of the petitioners on the ground
that charge sheet was not filed and further without
verifying the charge sheet the Court cannot say whether 7
the name of PW2 was shown as eyewitness to the accident
or not.
17. It is pertinent to state that non-exhibition of
document does not disentitles the claim of the petitioners,
where sufficient evidence was adduced and further the
name of Sudhakar was reflecting as one of the panch
witnesses in Ex.A2-Inquest report. Under these
circumstances, the question of reflecting his name as
eyewitness in the charge sheet to the occurrence need not
be given much importance. Furthermore, there is no
dispute regarding occurrence of accident, death of the
deceased in the said accident and the petitioners have
examined eyewitness and thereby discharged their initial
burden to prove their case. On the other hand, respondent
No.2-Insurnace company has not examined any witness to
rebut the petitioners' evidence. The Insurance company
could have adduced evidence by examining the driver of
the offending vehicle as their witness, or even otherwise
they would have filed copy of charge sheet before the trial 8
Court. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in Vimla
Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1 held that:
"Non-exhibition of documents i.e. a procedural lapse does not disentitle a claim, when otherwise sufficient evidence is adduced and documents established the identity of the offending vehicle."
18. In view of the above discussion and settled
principle of law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners
have proved their case that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligence of driver of Car bearing No.AP 28 BP
4509 and they are entitled for compensation. Therefore,
the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim
application without considering the said aspect, and the
dismissal Order dated 14.02.2018 passed in Motor Vehicle
Original Petition No.1504 of 2014 by the learned Tribunal,
is liable to be set aside.
19. Now coming to the compensation as per
petitioners, the deceased was working as Security Guard
and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioners
have filed Ex.A8-Salary certificate of the deceased 1 (2019) 2 SCC 186 9
and they have also filed educational qualifications
certificate under Exs.A4, A5 and A6. They also
filed Ex.A7 pan card of the deceased. Though they
filed Ex.A8-Salary certificate before the learned
Tribunal, they failed to prove the same by
examining the author of the document. Mere filing
of the document without proving the same cannot
be completely taken into consideration. However,
considering the educational qualifications of the
deceased, this Court is inclined to fix the annual
income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- (Rs.7,000x12)
which comes to Rs.84,000/-. In view of the decision of
the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 40%
i.e., Rs.33,600/- towards future prospects can duly be
added thereto. Thus, the annual income of the deceased
comes to Rs.1,17,600/- (Rs.84,000/- + Rs.33,600/- being
40% towards future prospects). Since the deceased was
bachelor, after deducting half of the annual income
(Rs.58,800/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased,
2 2017 ACJ 2700 10
as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another 3, the net annual contribution to the family comes
to Rs.58,800/-.
20. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 28
years at the time of fatal accident. Therefore, as per the
decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt. Sarla
Varma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Thus,
applying the multiplier '17' to the annual loss of
dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.58,800/-, the
total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,99,600/-
(Rs.58,800/- x 17). In addition to that, the petitioners are
entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads
(Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Thus, in all,
the petitioners are entitled to compensation of
Rs.10,32,600/-.
21. Accordingly, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the dismissal
Order dated 14.02.2018 passed in Motor Vehicle Original
Petition No.1504 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor 3 2009 (6) SCC 121 11
Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City
Civil Courts, Hyderabad. An amount of Rs.10,32,600/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred
only) is granted towards compensation to the appellants-
petitioners. The compensation amount shall carry interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization to be payable by respondent Nos.1 to
2 jointly and severally. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
directed to deposit the compensation amount to the credit
of Motor Vehicle Original Petition along with accrued
interest within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of copy of this Judgment as both of them are jointly
and severally liable. On such deposit, the appellants-
petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 24-JAN-2024 KHRM
