Telangana High Court

Smt S Venkatamma, R.R.Dist vs M/S Swathi Engineering, Hyderabad And 1 ... on 3 March, 2025

          HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.984 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of XI Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.1096 of

2012, dated 27.04.2015, the petitioner in the said M.V.O.P.

preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by

awarding compensation amount .

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 nutshell are that the petitioner, who

is the wife of Late S.Sailu (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased'),

filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

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

deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.02.2012.

It is stated by the petitioner that on 01.02.2012, the deceased went

to Moinabad for attending certain work and after completion of the

same, when he was returning to Pedamangalram, on the way at

about 10.30 a.m., when he reached near Koya Farm House

situated at the outskirts of Peddamangalaram Village, one JCB

Crane bearing No.AP-28-CA-6580, driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the deceased. As a

result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on

vital parts of the body and died on the spot. Immediately, he was

MGP,J

shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and autopsy was

conducted on his body.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Patancheru, registered a case

in Crime No.23 of 2012 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver

of JCB Crane bearing No.AP-28-CA-6580.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that prior to accident, the

deceased was aged 50 years and was hale and healthy and used to

earn more than Rs.6,000/- per month by working as a Labour and

contribute the same for maintenance of their family. On account of

the untimely and accidental death of the deceased, she had lost the

sole bread winner and was put to shock, mental agony and

hardship. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents 1 & 2.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 remained ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.1/Owner of JCB Crane filed his counter

denying the averments made in the claim petition including,

manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, medical

expenditure incurred, involvement and negligence of driver of crime

JCB Crane bearing No.AP-28-CA-6580 and contended that the

compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to

dismiss the claim against him.

MGP,J

8. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Trial Court had

framed the following issues:-

i. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-28-CA- 6580 causing death of S.Sailu?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

iii. To what relief?

9. Before the Trial Court, petitioner/wife of the deceased,

examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 & A2 on her

behalf. On behalf of respondents, no oral or documentary evidence

was adduced.

10. The learned Trial Court dismissed the claim petition on the

ground that the petitioner failed to produce evidence showing that

the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime JCB Crane bearing

No.AP-28-CA-6580. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

preferred the present Appeal praying this Court to allow the Appeal

by granting compensation.

11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri T.Viswarupa Chary,

learned counsel for Appellant/petitioner and Sri N.Mohan Krishna,

learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance

Company, who appeared through virtual mode. Perused the record.

MGP,J

12. The main contention of the learned counsel for Appellant is

that the Trial Court erroneously dismissed the claim petition on

the ground that the petitioner failed to prove about the involvement

of the vehicle in the accident and failed to consider Ex.A1 which

clearly discloses about the involvement of crime vehicle Crane

bearing No.AP-28CA-6580 in the alleged accident and therefore,

prayed to allow the Appeal by granting compensation amount.

Learned counsel also referred to a recent decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in RAM MURTI AND OTHERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE

ELECTRICITY BOARD 1 wherein it is held that Chapter 11 was

substituted of which Section 164 provides for payment of

compensation in case of death and injury cases.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Trial Court

had rightly dismissed the claim petition as the petitioner failed to

file charge sheet or any substantive proof showing the involvement

of the crime vehicle Crane in the alleged accident and interference

of this Court is unwarranted.

14. Now the point that arises for determination is,

Whether the order passed by the learned Trial Courtsuffers from any irregularity?

2022 LawSuit (SC) 1576

MGP,J

POINT:-

15. This Court has perused the evidence and documents

available on record. Petitioner/Wife of the deceased examined

herself as PW1 and reiterated the contents made in the claim

petition and got marked Exs.A1 & A2 on her behalf. A perusal of

Ex.A1 discloses that Police of Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad

District, registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2012, under Section

304-A IPC against the driver of crime Crane bearing No.AP-28-CA-

6580. Ex.A2 is the Inquest report conducted over the dead body of

the deceased.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial

Court erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground that

the petitioner failed to produce evidence showing about the

involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident.

17. It is pertinent to mention that since the claim petition is filed

under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the question of rash

and negligence on part of other vehicles does not arise.

Admittedly, as seen from Ex.A1-FIR, the Moinabad Police Station of

Cyberabad District, registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2012 under

Section 304-A IPC against the driver of subject Crane bearing

No.AP-28-CA-6580. Hence, from the above documentary evidence,

it can be held that the deceased died due to due to rash and

MGP,J

negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle-Crane bearing

No.AP-28-CA-6580 and the petitioner is entitled for compensation.

18. As far as compensation is concerned, though Section 163-A

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is substituted by Chapter 11

of Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f

01.04.2022) which provides for payment of compensation in case of

death, as Rs.5 lakh and in case of grievous hurt, as Rs.2.5 lakh,

but the said provision comes into force only with prospective effect

i.e. after 01.04.2022. Since the date of accident in the present

case is 01.02.2012, the said provision does not hold good. Hence,

this Court, by following the 2nd schedule of Section 163-A of M.V.

Act, 1988, hereby calculate the compensation as under:-

19. Though it is stated by the petitioner that the deceased used

to earn more than Rs.6,000/- per month by working as a Labour,

but there is no documentary proof filed by the petitioner evidencing

the same. Hence this Court, considering the Second Schedule of

Section 163-A of M.V.Act, hereby fix the notional income of the

deceased to the maximum amount of Rs.40,000/- per annum.

Since the deceased was 50 years old, the appropriate multiplier as

per 2nd schedule of Section 163-A of M.V.Act is '13'. After applying

the multiplier, the compensation arrived would be Rs.5,20,000/-.

By following the note appended beneath the table of 2nd schedule of

Section 163-A of M.V.Act, if 1/3rd is deducted towards the

MGP,J

expenses incurred by the deceased for maintaining himself had he

been alive, the compensation would arrive at Rs.1,73,333/-.

Further, the appellant is also entitled for an amount of Rs.2,000/-

towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium

and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Upon calculating the same,

the total compensation for while the appellant is entitled to comes