Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1009 (AP)

Malle Savithramma v. B. Suryanarayana

2023-07-06

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.491 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapur and the respondents are the respondents in the said case. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased M.Shankar Reddy in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 30.05.2009. 4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows : On 30.05.2009 at about 6.00 a.m. when the deceased was proceeding along with milk can in the auto from his village to Anantapur and when the auto reached near Alamuru Kotha quarters, the driver of auto was proceeding slowly on extreme left side of the road, at that time, the driver of tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 02G 3922 and 3923 drove the same in a rash an negligent manner and dashed against the auto, resulting which the inmates of the auto sustained multiple injuries and the deceased died on the spot and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. The first respondent remained exparte. The respondents 2 to 5 filed counters denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the respondents 2 to 5 are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident occurred on 30.05.2009 at about 6.00 a.m., near Alamuru village, Kotha quarters due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 02G 3922 and 3923 and dashed against the auto and caused the death of the deceased? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against which respondent? iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent, however, E.B1 was marked. 8. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against which respondent? iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent, however, E.B1 was marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that as this case is filed under Section 163-A of M.V.Act, there is no need to prove the rashness or negligent act on the part of the driver of crime vehicle and proof of involvement of motor vehicle is sufficient to claim compensation and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- to the claimants towards compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount. 10. Now, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? 2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? 11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:- On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal held that while the deceased was travelling in the auto rickshaw from B.Yaleru village to Anantapur and when the auto reached near Alamuru Kotha quarters, the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a slow manner on extreme left side of the road, at that time, the crime vehicle tractor and trailer came from opposite side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto. Anantapur (Rural) Police registered a case against the driver of the tractor and trailer and filed charge sheet. This petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. There is no need to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the any vehicle. The involvement of the vehicle in a Motor Vehicle Accident is sufficient in a claim under 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act. The petitioners/ claimants need not prove the rashness or negligence of the part of the driver of the crime vehicle or the vehicle concerned in a proceedings initiated under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. 12. The involvement of the vehicle in a Motor Vehicle Accident is sufficient in a claim under 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act. The petitioners/ claimants need not prove the rashness or negligence of the part of the driver of the crime vehicle or the vehicle concerned in a proceedings initiated under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. 12. The Tribunal held in its order that since the petition is filed under Sections 140 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, this Court need not decide the percentage of contributory negligence and the percentage of the liability of each owner and Insurance Company. The Tribunal by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh and others, 2008 ACJ 1834 , came to conclusion that since the petitioners are third parties, who have done no wrong the actual wrong doers are the auto driver and the tractor and trailer driver. Therefore, in composite negligence this Court need not look into the extent of liability of each wrong doers and need not apportion the liability of paying the compensation. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons held that the claimants are entitled compensation from both the wrong doers and it is his option to proceed against any one of the wrong doers or all the wrong doers for collecting the compensation and came to conclusion that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. No appeal is filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 13. Coming to the compensation granted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- towards compensation. On appreciation of the entire record, as the petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the income of the deceased has taken as Rs.3,000/- per month as a daily labour by the Tribunal. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was having Ac.10.00 cents of land and doing milk business and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. Since the petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the maximum limit of the income to be considered as Rs.40,000/- per annum. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was having Ac.10.00 cents of land and doing milk business and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. Since the petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the maximum limit of the income to be considered as Rs.40,000/- per annum. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.40,000/- notionally, since no evidence is produced by the petitioners to prove that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/-. After deducting 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution to the family of the deceased is arrived at Rs.26,667/- (40,000 – 13,333). The deceased was aged about 48 years by the date of accident. The relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘13’ and the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,46,671/- (Rs.26,667/- x 13). In addition to that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.3,86,671/- is awarded towards total compensation to the claimants. 14. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order dated 28.02.2012 passed in MVOP No.491/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapur and the claim amount is enhanced from Rs.2,85,000/- to Rs.3,86,671/-. The petitioners are entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,01,671/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of payment. All the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,01,671/- along with interest as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.