Kurva Vidya Sagar vs P Ramulaiah
2024 Latest Caselaw 1010 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kurva Vidya Sagar vs P Ramulaiah on 11 March, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                       M.A.C.M.A.No.1038 OF 2018
                                  AND
                       M.A.C.M.A.No.1622 OF 2018


COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1038 of 2018, filed by the owner of

the crime vehicle challenging the compensation awarded and

M.A.C.M.A.No.1622 of 2018 filed by claim petitioners seeking for

enhancement of compensation, are directed against the very same

order dated 24.01.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.826 of 2012 on the

file of the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the claim petitioners,

who are wife and daughter of one Sri Ponnam Kumaraiah,

(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who

died in a road accident that occurred on 21.06.2009 at about

05.00 PM, near Indira Nagar Bus Stop, Serilingampally,

Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. As per the version of the

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

petitioners, on 21.06.2009 at about 5.00 PM, when the deceased-

Ponnam Kumaraiah was crossing the road at Indira Nagar Bus

Stop, Serilingampally, the driver of Tata Safari Car bearing No.AP-

09-AA-7777 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the

road, received bleeding injuries on the head and other parts of the

body. Immediately, he was shifted to Rajitha Hospital in '108'

Ambulance for treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to

residence and died on 04.07.2009. Based on a complaint, the

Police, Raidurgam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.209

of 2009 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of One Tata

Safari Bearing No.AP-9AA-7777 who drove the said vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which

he received bleeding injuries on head and other parts of body and

was shifted to Rajitha Hospital in '108' Ambulance. Due to the

sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their bread

winner, love and affection and were put to mental shock.

Therefore, they filed a petition claiming compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest from Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who

are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle i.e., Tata Safari

Bearing No.AP-9AA-7777 which is involved in the accident.

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

4. Before the trial Court, Respondent No.1, who is the driver of

crime vehicle i.e., Tata Safari Bearing No.AP-9AA-7777, remained

ex-parte. Respondent No.2, who is the owner of the crime vehicle

filed his counter contending that the petitioners filed claim petition

three years after occurrence of accident and that there was no

document to show that the deceased had taken treatment in

Rajitha Hospital and the discharge of deceased from Rajitha

Hospital shows that the injuries are not serious and that the

deceased died after a gap of 14 days from the date of accident

which can be assumed that the deceased might have fallen in his

house due to old age and died. It is further contended that the

income alleged by the claim petitioners do not tally with the income

mentioned in the ration card. He also contended that he is no way

connected with the accident and the previous owner Sri B.Srinivas

is connected with the said accident and that there is collusion

between petitioners and respondent No.1 and hence, prayed to

dismiss the claim petition against Respondent No.2.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the

following issues:-

(i) Whether the deceased died in the accident on 21.06.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Safari Vehicle bearing NO.AP-09-AA-

7777?

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation. If so, to what extent and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

6. Petitioner No.1 was examined herself as PW1 and got

examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident and also

examined PW3, who is Senior Assistant in Joint Transport

Commissioner Office, RTA, Hyderabad and got marked Exs.A1 to

A6 and Exs.X1 to X3 on their behalf. Respondent NO.2 himself

was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1-Copy of ration card

of the deceased.

7. After considering the claim petition, counter filed by

Respondent No.2 and the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the trial Court held that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Tata Safari

Bearing No.AP-9AA-7777 and had awarded compensation to a tune

of Rs.2,10,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum payable by

both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Challenging

the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the owner of the

crime vehicle and the claimants respectively.

8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

9. The contentions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant/Owner of crime vehicle in M.A.C.M.A.No.1038 of 2018

are that the claim petition was filed after three years of accident,

there is no document to show that the deceased was admitted in

Rajitha Hospital and had taken treatment and that the deceased

died 14 days after the accident. Hence, death is not due to the

injuries sustained to him. Further, petitioners never stayed within

the jurisdiction of the trial Court. PW2, who is an eye witness to

the accident, was not arrayed as witness in the charge sheet and

that there was no whisper about the documents of vehicle and

seizure of vehicle by police and hence, prayed to set-aside the order

of the learned Trial Court.

10. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for

the claim petitioners is that the trial Court erred in taking the

income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- and that the multiplier

applied by the Court is not correct and hence, prayed to enhance

the compensation awarded by the trial Court.

11. Now the points that emerges for determination are,

1. Whether the order passed by the trial Court suffers from any irregularity?

2. Whether the appellants/claim petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

POINTS:-

12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents

available on record. Petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the

deceased, was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the

claim petition. As she is not an eye witness to the incident, she got

examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident and who

deposed that on 21.06.2009 at about 5.00PM, when he is waiting

at Indranagar Bus Stop, Serlingampally to go to Raidurgam, after

completion of his painting work at Indranagar, at that time, one

Tata Safari Car bearing No.AP-09-AA-7777 came from Lingampally

proceeding towards Mehdipatnam with high speed in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the pedestrian who was crossing the

road slowly. Due to which, the pedestrian fell down on the road

and received head injury apart from fracture injuries.

Immediately, he was shifted to nearby Hospital in a 108

Ambulance and the Police, Raidurgam, recorded his statement. The

above evidence makes it clear that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Safari Car

bearing NO.AP-09-AA-7777 which resulted in death of the

deceased. In the cross-examination, he stated that he do not know

whether he was shown as a witness in the charge sheet and he is

not acquainted with the deceased prior to the accident. He denied

the suggestion that he is not witness to the accident and his

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

statement was not recorded by Police and that he is deposing false.

The appellants also examined PW3, who is Senior Assistant in

Joint Transport Commission Office, RTA, Hyderabad and got

marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1 to X3 on her behalf. Ex.A1-

Certified copy of FIR shows that Police, Raidurgam Police Station,

registered a case in Crime No.209 of 2009 under Section 337 IPC

against the driver of the Tata Safari Car bearing No.AP-09-AA-7777

and conducted investigation and laid Ex.A2-Charge sheet against

the driver of the said Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP 09 BN 8424 for

his rash and negligent driving which resulted in the accident and

thereby death of the deceased. Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of case

diary, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of CDF, Ex.A5 is the certified copy

of inquest report, Ex.A6 is the certified copy of Post mortem

examination report, Ex.X1 is the letter issued by Public

Information Officer, Ex.X2 is the letter of Assistant Secretary, RTA,

Hyderabad, addressed to PIO, RTA, Hyderabad and Ex.X3 is the

office copy of letter dated 28.08.2015.

13. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned

counsel for the appellant is that the claim petition is filed belatedly

i.e., three years after the accident. In this regard, it is pertinent to

refer Para 15 of the judgment of the trial Court, wherein it is held

that as the petitioners are not affluent to have knowledge about the

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

procedural laws, they have not filed claim petition within time. The

reason stated so is considerable and this Court do not find any

reason to interfere with the same so far as this aspect is

concerned.

14. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the petitioners had not filed any document to show

that the deceased was admitted in Rajitha Hospital and that the

death has occurred 14 days after the accident and therefore, the

deceased had not died due to the injuries sustained to him in the

accident.

15. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer Exs.A1 & A2, which are

FIR and Charge sheet wherein it is clearly mentioned that after the

accident, the deceased was immediately shifted to Rajitha Hospital

in '108' Ambulance for treatment and from there, he was referred

to Osmania General Hospital for further treatment and was

discharged from the Hospital on 30.06.2009 and later expired on

04.07.2009 at his house. Further, a perusal of the inquest report

under Ex.A5 shows that the deceased met with motor vehicle

accident on 21.06.2009 and succumbed to injuries on 04.07.2009

and further, Ex.A6-Post Mortem Examination report also shows

the cause of death is due to Head and pelvic injuries. Therefore,

from the above, it is clear that the deceased died due to the injuries

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

sustained by him in a road traffic accident and he suffered for 14

days due to the said injuries and later succumbed to injuries.

Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained and death of

the deceased is unsustainable.

16. The other contention made by the learned counsel for the

appellant is with regard to jurisdiction. In this regard it is

pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRAMOD SINHA

VS.SURESH SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS 1 had held that it is not

mandatory for the claimants to lodge an application for

compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before

the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident

occurred. Claimants can approach the MACT within the local limits

of whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or the

defendant resides. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel

for the appellant is unsustainable so far as Jurisdictional aspect is

concerned.

17. The other contention made by the learned counsel for the

appellant is that PW2 is a planted witness as he was not shown as

witness in the charge sheet. In this regard, it is pertinent to

mention that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

2023 Live Law (SC) 596

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

Sunita Vs.Rajasthan State Road Transportation 2 ,the Hon'ble

Apex Court at Para 28 of the Judgment held as under:-

"...there is nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a witness in Motor Accidents Claim who has not been named in the list of witnesses in the criminal case. What is essential is that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness. Once that is done, it will not be open to them to complain about any prejudice caused to them. If there was any doubt to be cast on the veracity of the witness, the same should have come out in the cross-examination, for which opportunity was granted to the respondents by the Trial Court."

18. In the present case, the appellant was granted ample

opportunity to cross-examine PW2. Hence, the contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is unsustainable.

19. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that PW3 appeared before the Court as witness without

any authorization or witness summons from the Court and gave

evidence and hence, his evidence cannot be considered. In this

regard, it is pertinent to refer the evidence of PW3, wherein he

deposed that he is working as Senior Assistant in Joint Transport

Commissioner and Secretary Office, RTA, Hyderabad and having

received summons from the Court, he appeared before the Court

and giving evidence as per the office records and got marked

Ex.X1, letter issued by Public Information Officer, O/o.Joint

AIR 2019 Supreme Court 994

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

Transport Commissioner and Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad, Ex.X2 is

the letter of Assistant Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad addressed to PIO,

RTA Hyderabad. A perusal of the Exhibits shows that the crime

vehicle was in the name of Sri Kurra Vidya Sagar, appellant herein,

as on the date of accident and the said Exhibits were issued by

RTA, Hyderabad and as PW3 is working under it, he is

representing on behalf of RTI and had produce the said letters

which were marked as exhibits before the Court. Therefore, the

contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW3

did not file any letter from Regional Transport Authority to depose

as a witness is unsustainable. Moreover, a perusal of Ex.X2 shows

that the appellant herein is the owner of the crime vehicle in

question.

20. This Court relies upon the decision reported in National

Insurance Co. Ltd Vs.Shaik Yousuf Bee & others 3 , wherein, the

Hon'ble Apex Court at Para 9 of the Judgment held as under:-

"Here it requires to be noticed is that the occurrence of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle in a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act need not be established by the claimants beyond reasonable doubt as is required for proof of the guilt of the accused in a criminal case by the prosecution. It is enough for the claimants to establish the involvement of the vehicle basing on preponderance of

AIROnline 2012 AP 61

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

probabilities. Moreover, a summary procedure is contemplated for the Trial Courts constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act to be followed in the enquiries in claim cases arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. The evidence let in should be summary in nature and the Trial Court need not follow the strict rules of evidence and it can adopt it's own procedure for conducting enquiries into the claims."

21. This Court also relies upon a decision reported in Janabai

Vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance 4, wherein, it is held as under:-

"10. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable."

22. In the present case, there is no reason to show as to why the

claim petitioners would file a case on false grounds. As the

petitioners have lost their bread earner and it is becoming difficult

to eke out their livelihood, they filed the claim petition seeking

compensation.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the

evidence of PW2 was recorded after reopening the case which is

2022(5)ALD76SC

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

against the principles of order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. This Court has

perused the evidence of PW2 wherein the cross-examination of

PW2 was deferred by Respondent No.2. Therefore, on the next date

of hearing PW2 was recalled for cross-examination by respondent

No.2 which does not mean that his evidence was completed and

the matter was reopened again for cross-examining him. Therefore,

the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the

matter was reopened and PW2 was recalled for cross-examination

is held to be not true.

24. This Court, upon perusal of the documents available on

record, found that the crime vehicle has no valid Insurance policy

and further, the driver is not having valid driving license at the

time of accident and knowing the same, the owner of the vehicle

i.e., the appellant herein, has handed over the vehicle to him and

caused accident. According to Motor Vehicle Act 2019, it is

mandatory for a vehicle owner to drive the vehicle with an

insurance policy. Here, in this case, appellant had violated the

terms and conditions of Motor Vehicle Act. Based on the said

ground, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

25. Coming to the aspect of compensation awarded, it is the

contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claim

petitioners in MACMA.1622 of 2018 that though the deceased used

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

to earn Rs,.10,000/- per month, but the learned Trial Court had

taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.2,500/- per month. In this

regard, it is pertinent to mention that as the claim petitioners failed

to produce documentary proof showing the monthly income of the

deceased as Rs.10,000/-, the trial Court, by considering the age of

the deceased and inflation in the economy of the country, fixed the

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/-. As the accident is

of the year 2009, this Court is of the view that the amount taken

by the trial Court is considerable and hence, is not inclined to

interfere with the same. The other contention made by the learned

counsel for the claim petitioners is that the learned trial Court

erred in applying appropriate multiplier. As per the decision of

Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 5, the

appropriate multiplier for the age of the deceased being '65' years

is "7". The trial Court had applied the same and awarded

compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- payable by Respondents 1 & 2.

This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding

which is in proper perspective.

26. As far as interest is concerned, the learned Trial Court

granted interest @ 9% per annum for which this Court is inclined

to interfere with the same by relying upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and

2009 (6) SCC 121

MGP,J MACMA.Nos.1038 and 1622 of 2018

others 6, and hereby reduces the interest granted by the trial Court

from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. Except the said finding,

the findings given by the learned Trial Court in other aspects shall

remain the same.

27. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1038 of 2018 filed by Respondent

No.2 in M.V.O.P./owner of the vehicle is partly allowed by reducing

the rate of interest granted by the Trial Court from 9 % to 7.5%

and M.A.C.M.A.No.1622 of 2018 filed by claim petitioners, is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

28. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

Dt.11.03.2024 ysk

6 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35