Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 537 (AP)

Adipudi Rajyalakshmi v. Chebrolu Ankamma Rao

2014-04-10

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 04.11.2004 passed in MVOP No. 280 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-out of the total claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows. On 20.06.1998 the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on the scooter of the first respondent bearing no.AP-7E-2148. When they reached near Pothuru the accident occurred. It is alleged that the driver of the Trolley bearing No. AAV 8485 parked the same along the left side of the road without any signal lights. Consequently the Scooter dashed against the Trolley. The deceased sustained injuries and died. The owner of the scooter respondent No.1 was admittedly driving the scooter at the time of accident. He lodged a complaint to the police Guntur Taluk, wherein a case in Crime No.169 of 1998 was registered against the Trolley driver. The police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The police filed final report holding that no case is made out against the scooter driver, however the police filed a case against the driver of the stationed trolley in STC No.241 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Guntur. The driver of the trolley pleaded guilty and accordingly he was convicted. 4. It appears that the first respondent owner of the scooter and the third respondent remained ex parte. Respondents 2 and 4 filed separate counters. According to the fourth respondent, the first respondent driver of the scooter is responsible for the accident. But, it is the case of the first and second respondents that the driver of the Trolley is responsible for the accident as he has parked the vehicle without any indicators and without any parking lights. 5. It is a fact that no eye witness was examined on behalf of the claimants, however certified copies of FIR, Inquest report and charge sheet were marked as Exs.A1 to A3 and certified copies of charge sheet, examination of accused and docket orders in STC No.241 of 1998 were marked as Exs.B1 to B3. 6. 5. It is a fact that no eye witness was examined on behalf of the claimants, however certified copies of FIR, Inquest report and charge sheet were marked as Exs.A1 to A3 and certified copies of charge sheet, examination of accused and docket orders in STC No.241 of 1998 were marked as Exs.B1 to B3. 6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to prove the negligence either on the part of the first respondent or the driver of the third respondent. The Tribunal held that since the claimants failed to prove the negligence aspect they are entitled to compensation of only Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. The said award of the Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal. 7. As far as the claimants are concerned, they have filed Exs.A1 to A3 and as far as the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned they have filed Exs.B1 to B3. However, surprisingly the Tribunal observed that in view of Ex.A3 referred charge sheet the fourth respondent shall pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants. 8. There cannot be any doubt to say that the accident occurred while the deceased was travelling on the scooter. It is also not in dispute that the first respondent, owner of the scooter was driving the scooter. It is also not in dispute that the trolley was parked along the left side of the road. The police have filed a final report stating that the first respondent is not responsible for the accident. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of charge sheet in STC No.241 of 1998, reveals that the police found that the driver of the trolley is responsible for the accident and accordingly he was charge sheeted. The relevant record in STC No.241 of 1998 shows that the trolley driver appeared before the Court and he admitted his guilt and he was convicted under Section 283 IPC. The trolley is a big vehicle. The accident occurred at about 07.30 PM. Even if the vehicle is parked in the road margin, if it is parked without any parking lights and any indicators it has to be held that the driver of the said vehicle is negligent in parking the vehicle. The trolley is a big vehicle. The accident occurred at about 07.30 PM. Even if the vehicle is parked in the road margin, if it is parked without any parking lights and any indicators it has to be held that the driver of the said vehicle is negligent in parking the vehicle. It may not be possible for drivers of vehicles passing on the road to observe the vehicle parked without any parking lights till they are very nearer to such vehicle and it will be difficult for them to avoid accidents. In this case the driver of the trolley is not examined. No other witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents. When there is no rebuttal evidence, evidence on record has to be appreciated. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have discarded Exs.B1 to B3. These documents reveal that the driver of the Trolley pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court. This important circumstance was over looked by the Tribunal. Thus, it is clear that the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect is erroneous. It may not be possible to examine the eye witnesses in all accident cases. Even if the first respondent is examined, his version may be termed as interested witness. 9. Though initially I thought that it is better to remand the matter for awarding just and reasonable compensation, but in view of the fact that the matter has been pending since more than 8 years, I am inclined to dispose of the appeal. 10. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased. According to PW.1 the deceased was working as a licenced document writer and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was aged about 44 years at the time of accident. Certain documents have been filed i.e., Ex.A5 certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Parchur in support of the case of the claimants that the deceased was a document writer. PW.2 is working as Sub-Registrar, Purchur. According to him the deceased was working as document writer with district licence No.14/83 and state licence No.7 of 1990. Ex.X1 is the relevant entry in the document writers licencing register. By stretch of no imagination it can be said that the income of the deceased would be less than Rs.4500/- per month, moreover the future increase in the income should be kept in mind. Ex.X1 is the relevant entry in the document writers licencing register. By stretch of no imagination it can be said that the income of the deceased would be less than Rs.4500/- per month, moreover the future increase in the income should be kept in mind. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 I consider it just and reasonable to determine the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. If 1/3 is deducted towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,000/- per month and annual loss of earnings would come to Rs.36,000/-. If the same is multiplied with appropriate multiplier ‘14’ the total loss of earnings comes to Rs.5,04,000/-. The first claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.6,29,000/-. 11. In case between Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the Apex Court observed that the Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the claims made by the claimants, to award and reasonable compensation. 12. In the light of the above judgment, the MACMA is allowed awarding total compensation of Rs.6,29,000/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Out of the said compensation amount the first claimant shall take Rs.2,29,000/- and the costs and the claimants 2 and 3 shall take each Rs.2,00,000/-. Since the claimants have claimed only Rs.3,00,000/- as total compensation amount, they are directed to pay the deficit court fee before drafting the decree. However, in the circumstances, no costs in the appeal. 13. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.