Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1083 (AP)

Divisional Manager v. Kola Lakshmi Devi

2023-07-14

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 in M.V.O.P.No.567 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 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 claim petitioners filed the petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who is son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and elder brother of 3rd petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.08.2011. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows: On 09.08.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased and his colleagues went for selling the product of Power Excel Powder at Singanamala village and after completing their work at about 7.45 p.m. they were returning in an auto to Anantapur and when they reached near SRIT Engineering College on anantapur-Tadipatri road, one APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 04W 8999 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from Anantapur side and dashed against the auto resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. The S.H.O., B.K.Samudram P.S. registered a case in crime No.126 of 2011 against the driver of the bus under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC and after a detailed investigation filed a charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The offending bus of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent and hired with the 3rd respondent/APSRTC. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are owner and insurer of the auto respectively. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 were set ex parte. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 filed individual counters by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. 6. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the driver of the offending bus had no valid driving licence, therefore, their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 7. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 filed individual counters by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. 6. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the driver of the offending bus had no valid driving licence, therefore, their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 7. It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent/APSRTC that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the auto; there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus; the driver of the bus had no valid driving licence; the 1st respondent hired the bus with them and the bus was insured with the 2nd respondent, as such, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 8. It is pleaded by the 5th respondent that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus of the 1st respondent which was insured with the 2nd respondent and hired with the 3rd respondent and there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto. 9. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the accident occurred on 09.08.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 04W 8999 by its driver and caused the death of the deceased? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation” If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 10. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked. 11. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the 1st respondent and accordingly, allowed the petition granting an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondent Nos.1 and 2 only and dismissed the petition against respondent Nos.3 to 5. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance company preferred the present appeal. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance company preferred the present appeal. 12. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 13. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? 14. POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. Therefore, his evidence is not relevant to decide the issue. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident. He deposed in his evidence that he was proceeding in the APSRTC bus and near SRIT Engineering College at about 7.30 p.m. its driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the opposite coming auto, as a result, one person died on the spot and other inmates in the auto sustained injuries. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to discredit his evidence and the suggestions put to him were denied by him. The petitioners also relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.5-certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.1 goes to show that on the report of one of the injured, the S.H.O., B.K. Samudram P.S. registered a case against the driver of the offending bus. Ex.A.5 clearly goes to show that after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending bus. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.5 clearly proves about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus resulting in the accident. The learned Tribunal also, on appreciating the evidence on record, came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 15. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 21 years at the time of accident and he used to earn a minimum of Rs.6,000/- per month. To establish the same, the petitioners did not place on record any documentary proof. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 15. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 21 years at the time of accident and he used to earn a minimum of Rs.6,000/- per month. To establish the same, the petitioners did not place on record any documentary proof. However, by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- after giving 1/3rd statutory deduction for his personal expenses, i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum as well as the age of the mother of the deceased as 43 years for computation of loss of dependency, as the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and after applying the appropriate multiplier ‘15’ to the age group of the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly arrived the loss of dependency to the family members of the deceased at Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x multiplier ‘15’). Besides, the Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- towards loss of love and affection and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses, obsequies, transportation expenses, etc. In total, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-. Since the petitioners restricted their claim to Rs.5,00,000/- only, the Tribunal granted the said amount towards compensation under all the heads to the petitioners. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 16. Considering the evidence of R.W.2, the authorized officer of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company and Ex.B.1-agreement between the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent and Ex.B.3- insurance policy, the Tribunal in its order held that the offending bus of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent under Ex.B.3-insurance policy and also hired with the 3rd respondent/APSRTC and as per Ex.B.1-agreement, though the offending bus was under control of the 3rd respondent, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. This Court feels that there is no illegality in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. 17. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the findings given by the Tribunal and the impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference and the appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 18. 17. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the findings given by the Tribunal and the impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference and the appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, while confirming the decree and order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, in M.V.O.P.No.567 of 2011. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.