Telangana High Court
Bobbidi Vijaya vs Imran Khan And Another on 11 March, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3449 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 27.01.2009
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District
and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak (hereinafter will be referred as
'Tribunal") in O.P.No.487 of 2006, the petitioner/claimant has
filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the
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 that the sole petitioner has filed claim petition under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 3 for the death of
deceased by name "Balakistaiah" (hereinafter will be referred as
'deceased'). The reason assigned by the petitioner, who is the
mother of the deceased, for the death of the deceased is that on
29.03.2006 the deceased along with two others were proceeding
from Medak to Sangareddy on a motorcycle and when they
MGP,J
reached near Shishu Mandir School, Sangareddy, a lorry
bearing registration No. UP 12 B 2520 (hereinafter will be
referred as 'crime vehicle') came in opposite direction in rash
and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, as a result,
the three persons died on the spot. According to the petitioner,
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the crime vehicle, which belongs to respondent No.1 and
insured with respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner filed
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against
respondents jointly and severally.
4. The respondent No.1, who is the owner of the crime
vehicle remained exparte and whereas, the respondent No.2
Insurance company filed counter denying all the averments in
the claim petition including age, avocation, income, manner of
accident apart from denying its liability. It also contended that
the accident occurred due to self negligence on part of the
deceased. It was specifically contended that the driver of the
crime vehicle was not having valid driving license to drive the
crime vehicle. On these grounds the respondent No.2 prayed to
dismiss the claim application.
MGP,J
5. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed
the following three issues.
i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. UP 12
B 2520 of its driver only?
ii) Whether the claimant (s) is/are entitled for
compensation, if so, at what quantum?
ii) To what relief?
6. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined
and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 on behalf of the petitioner. On
behalf of respondent No.2, its Deputy Manager was examined as
RW1 and also got marked Ex.B1 copy of the insurance policy.
The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions
awarded compensation of Rs.1,36,500/-. Aggrieved by the
impugned order, the appellant/petitioner preferred the present
Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record including the
grounds of Appeal.
8. There is no dispute that the respondents have not
preferred any Appeal to set aside the impugned order. There is
no dispute with regard to subsistence of Ex.B1 insurance policy
MGP,J
at the time of the accident. There is also no dispute with regard
to the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased.
9. The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that
the learned Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as
42 years.
10. In order to establish the age of the deceased, the
petitioner relied upon Ex.A7 i.e., SSC Certificate of the
deceased. As per Ex.A8, the date of birth of the deceased is
17.04.1983. Thus, by the date of accident i.e., on 29.03.2006,
the age of the deceased would be 22 years. But the learned
Tribunal considered the age of mother of the petitioner i.e., 42
years for arriving to the multiplier on the ground that the
deceased was unmarried. But it is settled law that even in case
of deceased, who is a bachelor, it is the age of the deceased
bachelor that has to be considered for arriving to relevant
multiplier but not the age of his parents. The appropriate
multiplier for the persons, who are aged between 21 to 25 years
would be "18", as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1.
1 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
11. Now coming to the earning capacity, the petitioner relied
upon Ex.A6 to establish that the deceased used to earn
Rs.4,000/- per month as vidya volunteer in Residential Bridge
Course Centre, Shepherd Organization. Admittedly, no witness
was examined to prove the genuineness of Ex.A6, more
particularly, when the respondents have raised objection that
Ex.A6 is a fabricated document. In the cross examination of
PW1, a suggestion was given to her that the salary of vidya
volunteer would be Rs.1,000/- but the same was denied. The
learned Tribunal by considering the circular issued by the
Government in respect of salary of Vidya Volunteer fixed the
salary of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month. Thus, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned
Tribunal so far as the income of the deceased as arrived by the
learned Tribunal.
12. Since petitioner is the only dependent, the learned
Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of income of the deceased
towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income of the
deceased after deducting his personal expenses would be
Rs.1,000/- (Rs.1500/- - Rs.500/-). The annual income of the
deceased would be Rs.12,000/- (Rs.1,000/- x 12 months).
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,16,000/-
MGP,J
(Rs.12,000/- x 18) towards loss of dependency. Apart from the
above, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards
cremation charges.
13. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the
learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of estate.
Even the cremation charges of Rs.2,000/- as awarded by the
learned Tribunal are appearing to be on lesser side. Thus, this
Court is inclined to award Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the
petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,46,000/-.
14. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 25% of
the award amount towards contributory negligence out of the
compensation even though there was no rash and negligent
driving on the part of the deceased.
15. A perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the
learned Tribunal arrived to conclusion that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as there was
triple riding and not because of rash and negligent driving. The
eyewitness examined on behalf of the petitioner i.e., PW2
deposed in his chief examination that three persons were
MGP,J
traveling on the motorcycle at the time of the accident. Even as
per the version of the petitioner, three persons were traveling on
the motorcycle of the deceased and all the three persons died on
the spot. Thus, as rightly pointed by the learned Tribunal rider
of scooter will be discomforted by reason of allowing two pillion
riders and thereby it amounts to violation of terms and
conditions of the insurance police, for which, contributory
negligence can be attributed against the deceased. Hence, the
above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
untenable.
16. Since there is contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased in involving triple riding at the time of the accident,
the petitioner has to forego 25% of the compensation entitled by
her. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,84,500/- (Rs.2,46,000/- - Rs.61,500/-).
17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned
Tribunal requires some modification as stated supra.
18. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount from Rs.1,36,500/- to Rs.1,84,500/-,
which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
MGP,J
filing the claim application till the date of realization. The
respondents being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are
liable to deposit the compensation amount within one month
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire
compensation awarded to her without furnishing any security.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed. .
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 11.03.2025
AS
