Pandula Maramma And Another vs Narla Krishna Rao And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 2789 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2789 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 July, 2024

Telangana High Court

Pandula Maramma And Another vs Narla Krishna Rao And Another on 23 July, 2024

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                         M.A.C.M.A No.1749 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 22.08.2005 in

O.P.No.1196 of 2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge at Nalgonda, the claimants have

preferred this appeal.

2. Heard Smt. P. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants and Smt. P. Satya Manjula, learned standing counsel

for the respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire material on

record.

3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount

of Rs.1,50,000/- and the Tribunal has dismissed the same.

4. The deceased is the unmarried son of claimant No.1 and brother of

claimant No.2.

5. According to the version of the claimants, on the day of accident,

the deceased as cleaner proceeded on a lorry bearing No.AP 28T 6611 for

loading sand. The driver of the said lorry drove it in a rash and negligent

manner and hit a parked lorry bearing No.ATT 1899. Iron rods protruding KS, J MACMA_1749_2008

from the body of the parked vehicle and there was no indication for other

drivers of vehicles to know about the iron rods.

6. On account of the impact, the deceased died and accordingly,

claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed

before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

7. The learned Tribunal judge found that the charge sheet was filed

against the lorry driver in which the deceased was present. Since the driver

of the lorry which was parked on the road was not responsible for the

accident according to the charge sheet, the Tribunal refused to grant

compensation. Further, neither the insurer of the vehicle in which the

deceased was travelling nor its owner were made as parties to the claim

petition.

8. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the

petition was filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act which means fault

need not be proved and it is a no fault liability. For the reason of not

making the insurer of the lorry in which the deceased was travelling will

have no effect in view of the specific provision under Section 163-A of the

MV Act. She relied on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of

Andhra Pradesh in case of Shahazadi Bee and others v. Managing KS, J MACMA_1749_2008

Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 1 and also judgment of High

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in case of Thogati Veeranjaneyulu

v. Syed Basha and another2.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

would submit that the Tribunal has specifically found that the driver of the

lorry in which the deceased was travelling was at fault and charge sheet was

filed against him under Section 304-A of IPC. In the said circumstances, the

compensation was rightly denied.

10. Having gone through the record, it is evident that charge sheet

vide C.C.No.132 of 1997 was filed on the file of JFCM, Ramannapet,

against the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was travelling.

However, he was not convicted. Admittedly, the alleged offending lorry

was parked on the road and there is nothing on record to show that there

were any parking lights on or any indication made by the driver to the effect

that the lorry was parked on the road. Further, the iron rods were protruding

out of the body of the lorry. In fact, Section 163-A of the MV Act gives

liberty to the claimants to be selective regarding claim for compensation.

Only for the reason of not making the owner and insurer of lorry, in which

the deceased was travelling as a party will not disentitle the claimants from

2003 (5) ALD 127 (DB)

2022 (1) ALT 161 (AP) KS, J MACMA_1749_2008

proceeding against the owner and insurer of lorry which was parked on the

road.

11. For the said reasons, finding of the Tribunal refusing to grant

compensation is set aside. However, neither the owner nor driver of lorry,

on which the deceased was working as cleaner, were examined to

substantiate his salary. For the said reasons, in accordance with Second

Schedule of the MV Act, this Court is inclined to take the notional income

of the deceased as Rs.21,000/- and accordingly, grant compensation.

12. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla

Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation 3 , if 50% of the income is deducted

towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor, the annual

contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be Rs.10,500/-. As per

Schedule II of the Act, the relevant multiplier for the said age of the

deceased is '18'. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of

dependency comes to Rs.1,89,000/- (Rs.10,500 X 18).

13. As regards the consortium to be paid, claimant No.1 is entitled to

Rs.40,000/- towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in

case of Pranay Sethi (3 Supra). With regard to the funeral expenses and

loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/-.

2009(6) SCC 121 KS, J MACMA_1749_2008

14. Therefore, the claimants are awarded the compensation as below:

      Head                                           Compensation awarded

  (1) Loss of dependency                             Rs.1,89,000

  (2) Funeral expenses and Loss of Estate            Rs.30,000

  (3) Loss of filial consortium                      Rs.40,000(for 1st claimant)

      Total compensation awarded                     Rs.2,59,000/-

15. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

allowed by setting aside the order dated 22.08.2005 in O.P.No.1196 of 2002

and the claimants are granted compensation of Rs.2,59,000/-, as hereunder:

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the

date of petition till the date of realization.

(b) The claimants shall pay the court fee on the enhanced amount

of compensation.

(c) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the amount jointly

and severally within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of judgment, to the credit of claim petition along with

accrued interest. On such deposit, claimants are entitled to

withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security.