Telangana High Court
Kommineni Kamalamma vs K.Subba Rao on 7 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2303 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant and Smt. P. Satya Manjula, learned standing
counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the
entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant
aggrieved by the award dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Khammam, (for
short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.111 of 2017.
3. The appellant filed claim petition following the death of her
daughter in road traffic accident which took place on 03.11.2016 at
9.30am. The accident occurred when the appellant's husband and
daughter were proceeding on Honda Activa bearing No.TS-04-EC-
3858 towards Treasury Office, Sathupalli as the appellant's
daughter has to attend duty in the Treasury office. While the duo
was proceeding on the Honda Activa, respondent No.1 i.e.
appellant's husband has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner while avoiding she-buffalo, applied sudden brakes causing
his daughter to fell down resulting in grievous head injury which
ultimately resulted in her death on the same day while undergoing
treatment.
4. The Tribunal upon examining the evidence adduced,
computed the total compensation to Rs.22,22,242/- but reduced
the same to Rs.10,11,121/- denying compensation to respondent
No.1 who was driving the vehicle at material time of the accident,
since he was the wrong-doer and a wrong-doer should not be
benefited.
5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that all the
ingredients for grant of compensation under Section 166 of M.V.Act
have been proven and therefore, full compensation ought to have
been awarded. The appellant contended that the Tribunal
committed error in denying 50% of compensation on the ground
that respondent No.1 is the wrong-doer and no wrong-doer should
benefit from his own wrongful act. The appellant contended that
there is no provision under the Act to deny compensation on the
alleged ground of negligence of respondent No.1. The claim petition
is filed by the mother of the deceased, as such deduction on the
ground of negligence by respondent No.1 is contended
unjustifiable.
6. It is only incidental that the accident occurred due to driving
of respondent No.1 and the same resulted in death of his daughter.
The appellant to claim compensation has pleaded rash and
negligent driving on the part of her husband. However, the question
arises as to whether trying to avoid hitting she-buffalo amounts to
rash and negligent driving. Another question that arises for
consideration is whether respondent No.1 was driving negligently or
the she-buffalo suddenly came in the way of Honda Activa. The act
on the part of respondent No.1 in applying brakes to avoid hitting a
she-buffalo cannot be held against him for denying compensation
when there is insurance coverage and the claim is made by wife of
respondent No.1. The facts and circumstances of the case do not
clearly indicate whether it is fault of respondent No.1 or the fault of
buffalo which resulted in accident and consequent death of the
deceased. Therefore, denying compensation of 50% that too when
compensation is awarded only once, does not seem justifiable. In
the circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside to
the extent of deduction of 50% of the compensation computed and
respondent No.2/Insurance company is liable to pay the total
compensation of Rs.20,22,242/-.
7. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed and respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the
compensation of Rs.20,22,242/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of (8)
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. The amount, if
any, deposited by respondent No.2 shall be deducted from the said
amount of Rs.20,22,242/-. On such deposit, the appellant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the
security. However, the appellant shall pay the deficit Court Fee on
the compensation amount awarded.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 07.03.2025
gvl
