Tirumala Annapoorna vs Mukkamula Ramu
2025 Latest Caselaw 1141 Tel

Telangana High Court

Tirumala Annapoorna vs Mukkamula Ramu on 21 January, 2025

      HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.1186 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 02.07.2022

(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum -Principal District

Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in

M.V.O.P.No.303 of 2017, the petitioners/claimants has filed the

present Appeal to set aside the order and seeks just and

reasonable 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 as can be seen from the record

are as under:

a) The petitioners have filed claim petition claiming

compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and

2 for the death of deceased by name "Praveen Kumar"

(hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased'). Petitioner No.1 is the

wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children and petitioner

Nos. 4 and 5 are old aged parents of deceased. The reason

assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that

on 11.01.2017 at about 06:00 hours while the husband of the

MGP,J

petitioner No.1 was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.

TS.05.EA2310 from Nalgonda Town to his house at Munugode

village, the driver of the Ashok Leyland trolley bearing No.

TS.05.UB.0859 (LGV), (for brevity hereinafter called as "crime

vehicle") drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high

speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from

backside. Due to the accident, the deceased fell in the road side

ditch and sustained head injury and other multiple injuries all

over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Suraksha Multi

Specialty Hospital, Nalgonda but, as his condition was serious,

he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad where he was

treated as impatient till 27.01.2017. For further treatments he

was shifted to Osmania general Hospital, Hyderabad and while

undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.

b) Based on the complaint Police, Nalgonda Town-I

registered FIR No.33/2017 under Section 337 of Indian Penal

Code, 1806 against driver of the crime vehicle and later altered

the Section of law to Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code,

1806after investigation filed charge sheet. According to the

petitioners, the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of

accident and working as Collection Executive in Hinduja

Leyland Finance, Nalgonda and used to earn Rs.16,020/-per

MGP,J

month. The petitioners were solely depended on the income of

the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accident

the family suffered a lot and lost love and affection of the

deceased. Therefore, the petitioners as dependents of the

deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation of

Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) against respondents

jointly and severally.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and driver of

the trolley respectively were set ex-parte and whereas, the

respondent No.3/ Insurance Company filed counter denying the

averments of petition apart from denying its liability. It also

contended that the complaint was given to police on 28.01.2017

i.e., after lapse of 17 days of the alleged accident and it is clearly

a concocted story created by petitioners colluding with the

owner of crime vehicle and police officials to have wrongful gain

which raises serious questions as to fair investigation in the

matter. On the above grounds prayed to dismiss the claim

application.

5. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed

the following three issues.

i) Whether the deceased died in road accident occurred on 11.01.2017 at about 06:00 hours near

MGP,J

Raghavendra B.Ed college at the outskirts of Nalgonda Town on Munugode road due to rash and negligent driving of the Ashok Leyland Trolley bearing No.TS.05.UB.0859 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, from whom and to what amount?

iii) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined

and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. On behalf of respondent No.3,

its representative was examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1

Copy of Insurance policy. The learned Tribunal after considering

the rival contentions dismissed the claim petition with costs to

the petitioners. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the

appellants/petitioners preferred the present Appeal to set aside

the impugned order and grant just and reasonable

compensation.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for

appellants/petitioners is that though appellants proved their

case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the

documents under Exs. P-1 to P-12, the learned Tribunal

without considering the same has erroneously discarded the

evidence on record and dismissed the claim application and on

the above grounds prayed to allow the application and grant

compensation.

MGP,J

8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent

No.3/Insurance Company has contended that the learned

Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and the same

needs no interference by this court.

9. Now the points for consideration are that:

1) Whether the Tribunal is right in its finding that the death of the deceased was not caused by the crime vehicle and the impugned Order and Decree passed by the learned Tribunal calls for interference by this court?

2) Whether the appellants/petitioners are entitled for any compensation?

10. Heard both sides and perused the record including the

grounds of Appeal.

11. Point No.1: It is pertinent to note that the PW-1 i.e., wife

of the deceased reiterated the contents of the claim application

and the manner in which the accident occurred in her chief

examination by relying on Exs.P1 (FIR), P2 (inquest report), P5

(Charge-sheet) and that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the trolley bearing No.TS.05.UB0859 and

that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the

said accident. Further, PW-2, who is an eyewitness to the

incident deposed the manner in which the accident occurred

MGP,J

and the injuries sustained by the deceased and he informed the

matter to the family members of the deceased and nothing

much was elicited in his cross-examination to discard his

testimony. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the insurance

policy under Ex.R1 was subsisting as on the date of accident.

There is also no dispute with regard to the relationship between

the deceased and the appellants/claimants.

12. The learned Tribunal drawn an inference based on Ex.P-4

Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report that as there is no damage to

the alleged crime vehicle which per se a crucial evidence to

establish that the alleged crime vehicle is not involved in the

accident. In common parlance it is quite clear view that the

alleged crime vehicle is a Ashok Layland Trolley made which

dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from back. Thus, in all

certainty, the vehicle which rammed the motorcycle is a heavy

vehicle and there are very remote chances of it being damaged

due to accident. Therefore, merely because there are no

damages caused to the crime vehicle, it cannot be construed

that accident has not occurred.

13. It is well settled principle of law that standards of proof

like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident Claims

MGP,J

cases and standards to be followed in such claims is one based

on preponderance of probability rather than establishing the

case beyond reasonable doubt, as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

itself is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the

prime objective of providing relief to the family members, who

lost their family member in a vehicular accident. Unfortunately

in the present case the learned Tribunal erred in adjudicating

the matter like a criminal trial, discarding the evidence on

record and the version of eyewitness to the incident. Moreover,

until and unless there is prima facie material to establish that

the crime vehicle was involved in the alleged accident, the police

would not have laid charge sheet against the driver of the crime

vehicle. On the other hand, the owner of the crime vehicle

appeared before the learned Tribunal but did not file any

counter and also he has not filed any proceedings to quash FIR

against Syed Siraj, driver of the crime vehicle. It has also come

on record that owner of the crime vehicle has not made any

complaint in respect of false implication of his vehicle or the

driver.

14. It is pertinent to place reliance on the decision of

Honorable Apex Court in Anita Sharma and others v. New

MGP,J

India Assurance Company Limited and another 1, wherein it

was held at Para 16 that standards of proof like in a criminal

trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident Claims cases and the

relevant para is extracted hereunder:

"The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye- witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trail; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true."

15. Further reference can be made to another decision of

Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. Vs.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others 2,

wherein it was observed as under:

"It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."

1 2021 (1) SCC 171 2 2020 (13) SCC 486

MGP,J

16. Similarly, in the case of Kusum Lata & others v. Satbir

& others 3, the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:

"It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind."

17. The contention of learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent No.3/Insurance Company that the First Information

Report was given to Police after lapse of 17 days from the

alleged date of accident and the same is fatal to the claim

petition, is unsustainable. It is significant to bear in mind that

aftermath the accident happens and intimation about the

accident is received by the appellant No.1 and other family

members the primary concern of them was to take care of the

injured in his critical condition. The health and well-being of her

husband was her priority rather than to lodge an FIR and it

cannot be expected that close relatives of the injured or

deceased person would rush to police station immediately to

lodge complaint rather than taking steps to provide immediate

treatment. Thus, delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to

doubt claimant's case or fatal to the claim petition.

3 2011 (3) SCC 646

MGP,J

18. It is pertinent to reproduce the observation of Honourable

Apex Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others, 4 wherein the

court held at para 17 as follows:

"17. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim."

19. In view of the above discussion and the decision of

Honourable Apex Court, 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 statements of appellant No. 1/PW1 and PW-2 i.e., eye

witness to 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 and the entire approach of the learned

Tribunal is clearly not sustainable. Therefore, this court is of

the considered opinion that the accident happened due to rash

2011 (4) Supreme Court Cases 693

MGP,J

and negligent driving of the crime vehicle that resulted in the

death of the deceased. Hence, the point No.1 is answered

accordingly in favour of the appellants/petitioners.

20. Point No.2: Now coming to quantum of compensation,

according to the appellants/petitioners, the deceased was aged

about 32 years at the time of accident as evident from Ex.P-2

Inquest report and Ex.P-3 Post Mortem report. This aspect has

not been disputed by the respondents. As per the principle laid

down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 5, the

appropriate multiplier for the persons aged between 31 to 35

years is '16'.

21. According to the appellants/petitioners the deceased was

working as Collection Executive in Hinduja Finance Private

Limited and used to earn Rs.16,020/- per month. In order to

prove the same the appellants/petitioners relied upon Ex. P-6 to

Ex.P-10, five consecutive monthly pay slips before the deceased

met with the accident. A perusal of Exs.P6 to P10 discloses that

the deceased was earning net salary of Rs.14,920/-

22. It is significant to note that pay slips issued by the

employer is sufficient to establish the monthly earnings of the

(2009) 6 SCC 121

MGP,J

injured/deceased. In a recent decision of Honourable Supreme

Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indiro Devi &

Ors 6 the court observed at Para 9 as follows:

"It was not necessary for the claimants to explain the contradiction between the figures of the salary certificate and the income as mentioned in the income tax records/assessment. It was held that there is nothing in the law which requires the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased only on the basis of a salary certificate for arriving at a just and fair compensation to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life."

23. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in a case of

Rajwati and others v. United India Insurance Company

limited 7 along with Seema and others v. United India

Insurance Company, answered this question as to whether pay

slips issued by the employer can be taken into consideration

while assessing the income of the deceased at Para 29, which is

reproduced below:

"....we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctly determined the deceased's monthly income as Rs.11,225/- while placing reliance on documentary evidence adduced in this regard, viz, the salary certificate (Exhibit-17) and pay slip (Exhibit-18), as well as the statements of the deceased's wife and his co-workers. We do not agree with the view taken by the High Court while holding that since the person issuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined before the Tribunal the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.4,836/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time.

6 2018 (3) ACJ 2051 7 2022 ACJ 2754

MGP,J

Resultantly, we affirm the findings of the Tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the deceased's income is concerned".

24. In the case on hand apart from Exs.P6 to P10, the wife of

the deceased, who was examined PW1, categorically deposed

about the salary of the deceased as mentioned in the above

exhibits. Thus, in view of the principle laid down in the above

said decisions coupled with the oral and documentary evidence

adduced on behalf of the claimants, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the claimants could establish the salary

of the deceased as Rs.14,920/- per month.

25. Since the claimants are five in number, 1/4th of the

monthly salary of the deceased (Rs.3,730/-) shall be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased, as such, the

contribution of the deceased towards his family members will

arrive to Rs.11,190/-. Since the deceased was aged below 40

years and doing private job, he is entitled for future prospects of

40% as per the decision laid down in National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 8. Thus, the

monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to

Rs.15,666/- per annum (Rs.11,190/- + Rs.4,476/-) and the

8 2017 ACJ 2700

MGP,J

annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,87,992/-

(15,666/- x 12 months). As stated above, the relevant

multiplier for the age of the deceased is '16'. When the annual

salary of the deceased after deducting his personal expenses is

multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to

Rs.30,07,872/- (Rs.1,87,992/- x 16). Thus, the loss of

dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is

Rs.30,07,872/-.

26. As per the principle laid down in National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 9 the claimants

are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads

(Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). In addition thereof,

petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the minor children of the

deceased and petitioner No.1 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each

under the head of 'parental consortium' as per the decision of

the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company

Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 10. Thus, in

all, petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation of

Rs.31,57,872/- (Rs. 30,07,872/- + Rs. 77,000/- + Rs.80,000/-).

9 2017 ACJ 2700

10 (2018) 18 SCC 130

MGP,J

27. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court

is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the

learned Tribunal is required to be set aside and the claimants

are awarded the compensation as stated supra.

28. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the

impugned order and decree dated 02.07.2022 passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum -Principal District

Judge, Nalgonda in M.V.O.P.No.303 of 2017. Accordingly, the

claim petition filed by the petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.303 of 2017

is allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.31,57,872/-,

which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

filing the claim application till the date of realization. The

respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to

deposit the compensation amount within one month from the

date of receipt of copy of this order. Out of the above said

compensation, the petitioner No.1 is awarded an amount of

Rs.5,57,872/- and the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are awarded an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each and they are entitled to withdraw

the entire amount awarded to them without furnishing any

security. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are awarded

Rs.12,00,000/- each. Since the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are

minors, the compensation awarded to them shall be deposited

MGP,J

in any nationalized bank until they attain the age of majority.

The petitioner No.1 being the natural guardian (mother) of

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is entitled to withdraw the interest

accrued on the deposited amount once in six months to meet

the day to day expenses of the minors. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Date: 21.01.2025 AS