Telangana High Court
Kunta Sudharshan vs Tellu Chinna Sailu on 4 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1605 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/
petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents
despite of service of notice.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-petitioners
dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad (for
short, 'Tribunal') in MVOP No.533 of 2021, dated 15.07.2024 and
thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. Appellants herein are the petitioners, respondent No.1 herein is
respondent No.1-owner of crime vehicle and respondent No.2 herein is
the respondent No.2-insurance company before the Tribunal. For
convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the
Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
4.1. On 20.07.2021 at about 3.30 p.m., Kunta Srinivas (hereinafter
referred to as 'deceased') (who was working as driver under the
respondent No.1) and while he was driving KG wheels Tractor bearing
registration NO.TS-16-AN-TR-6876 (hereinafter referred to as crime
LNA,J
vehicle) from the fields of Tellu Poshetty to Sirnapally village, suddenly
the front wheel went upon the stones, due to which, the deceased
thrown away from the tractor and fell before the tractor and tractor ran
over him, as a result, he received multiple and grievous injuries all over
the body and died on the spot.
4.2. The Police, Indalwai Police Station registered a case in Crime
No.125 of 2021 under Section 304-A of IPC.
4.3. The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased, incurred an
amount of Rs.1,00,000- towards transportation of body and for
performing funeral and last rites of the deceased; that deceased was
aged 25 years and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month and batta of
Rs.200/- per day and Rs.5,000/- per month as Electrician.
4.4. The petitioners contended the crime vehicle was owned by the
respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.2-insurance
company and therefore, filed claim petition under Sections 166 (1)(c) &
167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased.
5. The respondent No.1 filed counter admitting that he is the owner
of the crime vehicle and the same was insured with the respondent no.2
as on the date of the accident and therefore, the insurance company is
LNA,J
only liable for payment of compensation and prayed to dismiss the
claim petition against him.
6. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying
the narration of occurrence of accident, as put-forth by the petitioner,
the age, avocation and earnings of the petitioner. The respondent No.2
further contended that the accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the deceased himself, and denied that that
deceased was having valid licence. It is further contended that
compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the deceased-Kunta Srinivas s/o.Kunta Sudharshan
died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 20.07.2021 at
about 3.30 p.m., in the shivar of Sirnapally village near the fields
of Chakali Rajender at a distance of 9 KMs towards South-Eash
from PS Indalwai due to the KG wheel tractor bearing No.TS-16-
AN-TR-6876 went upon the stones, deceased fled away from the
tractor and fell before the tractor and the tractor ran over him by
its driver ?
2) Whether the driver of the vehicle (KG wheel tractor bearing
No.TS-16-AN-6876) was possessing valid driving licence to ride
the vehicle at the time of accident ?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to
what extent and from whom ?
4) To what relief ?
LNA,J
8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioners,
P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf
of respondent no.1, RW.1 was examined and no document was marked.
On behalf of the respondent No.2-insurance company, RW.2 was
examined and copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
9. The Tribunal, on due appreciation of the material and evidence
placed on record, awarded a sum of Rs.3,49,500/- towards
compensation to the petitioners payable by the respondent Nos.1 to and
2 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of the petition till the date of realization.
10. The learned counsel for appellants/petitioners submitted that the
Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased
as Rs.18,000/- , which comes to Rs.2,16,000/- per annum, however, the
Tribunal has erroneously considered the annual income of the deceased
as Rs.40,000/- by wrongly applying the Schedule-II of the Act, 1988
and in any event, a sum of Rs.3,49,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is
too meager. It is further contended that despite placing relevant
evidence and marking of driving licence issued by Sultanate of Oman,
VISA confirmation, Job agreement, SCC Memo, Intermediate Pass
Certificate, Technical Certificate, etc., which are marked as Exs.A7 to 13,
LNA,J
the Tribunal did not consider the said documents and evidence and has
awarded meager amount erroneously.
Consideration:
11. It is relevant to note that Crime No.125 of 2021 was registered
under Section 304-A of IPC by the Indalwai Police Station in respect of
the motor vehicle accident that took place on 20.07.2021. In the said
accident, the deceased, who was driving the crime vehicle, died on the
spot and after conducting investigation, the Police came to a conclusion
that accident has taken place because of the self negligence of the
deceased and filed Ex.A5-final report as 'action abated' and closed the
criminal case.
12. The Tribunal taking into consideration the closure of the criminal
case as 'action abated' had considered the claim petition under Section
163-A of the MV Act though the claim petition was originally filed
under Sections 166(1) (c) & 167 of the Act, 1988. The Tribunal by
referring to Schedule-II of the Act, 1988, considered the annual income
of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- and applied multiplier 18 since the
deceased was aged 25 years in accordance with Schedule-II and total
compensation payable was arrived at Rs.6,80,000/-; that since the
deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income of the deceased was
deducted towards his personal expenses and the Tribunal awarded an
LNA,J
amount of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation on account of death of the
deceased. The Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- for
funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, and Rs.2,500/-
towards loss of estate and thus, the Tribunal awarded total
compensation amount of Rs.3,49,500/-.
13. It is relevant to note that the Police after conducting enquiry in
criminal case, which was registered under Section 304-A of IPC, came to
conclusion that accident has taken place due to self negligence of the
deceased and therefore, closed the criminal case as 'action abated'.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the claim petition under
Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 though the claim petition as originally
filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. In the present case, the
deceased was driving the tractor and as per the evidence on record, the
tractor hit a boulder and turned turtle, due to which the deceased fell
down and died on the spot. There is no involvement of third party
vehicle in the said accident and, therefore, the claim petition is
maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and thus, the
Tribunal has rightly considered the claim petition under Section 163-A
of the Act, 1988, where petitioners need not prove the negligence on the
part of crime vehicle, unlike claim petition filed under Section 166 of the
Act, 1988, where the claimants have to prove rash and negligent driving
LNA,J
of offending vehicle. Admittedly, in the present case, the accident has
taken place because of the self-negligence of the deceased and it is also
evident from the closer report of the Police and further, the criminal
case was closed as 'action abated'.
14. In view of the above discussion, in considered opinion of this
Court, there is no merit in the appeal and appellants/petitioners failed
to make out any case warranting interference by this Court and the
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 04.03.2025
kkm
