Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1084 (AP)

Branch Manager v. B. Gowri

2023-07-14

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : The appellants are the second and fourth respondents in M.V.O.P.No.325 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor and the respondents are the petitioners and respondents 1, 3 and 5 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 section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased B.Ethirajulu in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 14.03.2007. 4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows: On 14.03.2007 at about 6.00 a.m. while the deceased B.Ethirajulu, owner-cum-driver of Tata Spacio vehicle bearing No.AP 26 U 7373, was proceeding on Chittoor-Bangalore NH road and when he reached near Mordhanapalle village, the driver of lorry bearing No.KA 07C 2613 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Spacio vehicle of deceased, resulting which the deceased sustained injuries on his head and all over the body and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. The first and third respondents remained exparte. The fourth respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the fourth respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The second respondent adopted the written statement of fourth respondent. The fifth respondent filed written statement contending that she being the mother and class-1 legal heir of the deceased B.Ethirajulu, is entitled to compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of 1st respondent’s lorry bearing registration No.KA-07-C-2613 or due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased driver-cum-owner of the Tata Spacio vehicle bearing registration No.AP 26U 7373 or both? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation for the death of the deceased Ethirajulu, if so, to what amount and from whom? 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.A10 were marked. ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation for the death of the deceased Ethirajulu, if so, to what amount and from whom? 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.A10 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents, however Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were 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 the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle lorry and awarded a sum of Rs.9,00,712/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners and fifth respondent. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the second and fourth respondents filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? 11. POINT :- In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2 is one of the eye witness to the accident and also inquest mediator. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners examined one of the eye witness to the accident as PW2. The evidence of PW2 goes to show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle lorry i.e., third respondent. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report. After occurrence of the accident, the driver of the another vehicle lodged a complaint against the driver of the another vehicle, who died in a road accident. No doubt the First Information Report is registered against the deceased i.e., who is the driver of another vehicle. If two vehicles are involved in an accident, it is quite natural that the driver of the one of the vehicle to throw the blame on the driver of the opposite vehicle. No doubt the First Information Report is registered against the deceased i.e., who is the driver of another vehicle. If two vehicles are involved in an accident, it is quite natural that the driver of the one of the vehicle to throw the blame on the driver of the opposite vehicle. Written complaint is lodged by the driver of another vehicle, so that the First Information Report is registered initially against the deceased in the present case. More over the evidence of PW2 clearly goes to show that the accident was purely occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., third respondent in the claim application. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the death of the deceased was occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the third respondent. It is not in dispute by both the sides that the driver of the crime vehicle lorry of the first respondent insured the lorry with second respondent Insurance company under Ex.B1 policy and admittedly the same is in force on the date of accident. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the third respondent. The Tribunal gave the said finding by giving cogent reasons. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the above finding given by the Tribunal. 12. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.9,00,712/- towards total compensation from respondents 1 to 3. The claim against the other respondents is dismissed by the Tribunal. On considering the entire evidence on record, and basing on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. No material was placed before the Tribunal by the claimants to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.200/- per day i.e., Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident was occurred in the year 2007. In those days an ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.150/- per day. The driver of any of the four-wheeler can easily earn Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.4,500/- by this Court. i.e., Rs.54,000/- per annum. The accident was occurred in the year 2007. In those days an ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.150/- per day. The driver of any of the four-wheeler can easily earn Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.4,500/- by this Court. i.e., Rs.54,000/- per annum. The fifth respondent is none other than the mother of the deceased, who is also dependent on the deceased. The first petitioner is wife of the deceased and second petitioner is the minor child of the deceased and first petitioner. Therefore, the dependents on the deceased are three in number. Therefore, 1/3rd of income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/3rd income is deducted from out of Rs.54,000/-, the net income available to the family of the deceased is Rs.36,000/- (54,000 – 18,000) and appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is 16. Accordingly, the petitioners and the fifth respondent are entitled an amount of Rs.5,76,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 16) towards loss of dependency. 13. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.92,712/- towards medical expenses. No doubt, the claimants filed medical bills under Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. But in order to prove the said medical bills, the concerned medical officer is not at all examined and the said Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 bills are not confronted through any of the medical officer. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, it is not safe to award an amount of Rs.92,712/- towards medical expenses, because Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 medical bills are not at all proved through medical officer. The material on record reveals that the deceased underwent treatment in hospital prior to his death. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses instead of Rs.92,712/-. 14. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the above finding given by the Tribunal for awarding compensation under the above four conventional heads. The material on record reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., third respondent is having valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the above finding given by the Tribunal for awarding compensation under the above four conventional heads. The material on record reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., third respondent is having valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The first respondent/ owner of the offending vehicle is insured the vehicle with second respondent Insurance Company under Ex.B1 policy and the same is in force by the date of accident. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that the accident in question was occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and there is no fault on the part of the deceased i.e., owner-cum-driver of Tata Spacio vehicle bearing No.AP 26U 7373. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.6,26,000/- awarded by this Court. 15. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 07.01.2013 passed in MVOP No.325/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Chittoor is modified by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.9,00,712/- to Rs.6,26,000/-. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount with interest @7.5% p.a. within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the fifth respondent is entitled an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- with interest thereon and the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled the remaining compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest thereon equally. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.