Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1541 (AP)

A. P. S. R. T. C. , MUSHIRABAD v. E. GANGAIAH

2006-12-07

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2006
( 1 ) THE sole respondent in M. V. O. P. No. 204 of 2000, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa, filed this C. M. A. , under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act' ). The respondents filed the O. P. , stating that their son, by name Venkata Ramana, was travelling in a Bus bearing No. AP 9z 5986 on 10. 10. 1999 and when he went to the top of the bus, to put the bundle of banana leaves, he came into contact with a live electrical wire and died instantly. They pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month as labourer and contributing almost the entire amount to the family. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. The claim was resisted by the appellant. The occurrence of the accident was not disputed, but it was pleaded that the deceased cannot be said to have died in an accident involving motor vehicle. Through its order, dated 16. 07. 2004, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and apportioned the same between respondents 1 and 2. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) THE only question urged before this Court is as to whether the death of the deceased can be said to have occurred in an accident involving a motor vehicle. It is not in dispute that the deceased died, on coming into contact with a live electrical wire at a time, when he was putting the bundle of banana leaves on the top of the bus. It is also not disputed that the bus was not in motion, at that time. If one goes by the ordinary parlance of the accidents, involving motor vehicles, the death of the deceased cannot be said to have taken place in such an accident. However, if the purport of Section 140 of the Act is taken into account, the appellant cannot avoid its liability. If one goes by the ordinary parlance of the accidents, involving motor vehicles, the death of the deceased cannot be said to have taken place in such an accident. However, if the purport of Section 140 of the Act is taken into account, the appellant cannot avoid its liability. Sub Section (1) of Section 140 of the Act reads as under: 140 (1):- Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. ( 4 ) FROM this, it is evident that the death or disablement must have occurred in an accident, arising out of 'use' of motor vehicle. The use of the motor vehicle cannot be restricted to the one, when the vehicle is in motion. Parliament contemplated all possible situations, that arise on account of the use of motor vehicle, and provided for payment of compensation, in the event of death or injuries in the accident. The Tribunal has appreciated the matter from the proper perspective and this Court does not find any basis to reverse the findings recorded by it. ( 5 ) THE quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be on a higher side. By any standard, compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- for the death of an individual cannot be said to be excessive. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, at the rate of 9% per annum, is contrary to the prevailing practice. In the matters of this nature, the Supreme Court has been uniformly awarding interest at the rate of 7. 5%. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest from the 9% to 7. 5%. In all other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal shall hold good. There shall be no order as to costs. - .