Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1101 (AP)

Garapati Radha v. Tanga Venkata Rao

2023-07-18

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.191 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram 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 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased Garapati Venkateswara Rao @ Venkanna in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 26.10.2007. 4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows : The deceased was working as driver on the buses belongs to Gagana Tours and Travels, Hyderabad. On 24.10.2007 in the evening at 6.00 p.m. he attended duty on a bus bearing No. AP 9X 3355 and started at Bhimavaram to go to Hyderabad along with cleaner Chuttugalla Durgarao and reached Hyderabad on 25.10.2007 in the morning. Again on the same day i.e., 25.10.2007 the deceased started at Hyderabad as a driver in the said bus to go to Amalapuram and the bus reached Vijayawada at about 6.00 a.m. on 26.10.2007 and started at Vijayawada at 6.05 a.m. and when reached near petrol bunk weigh bridge o NH-5 road in Gannavaram of Krishna District at about 6.30 a.m., by that time a lorry bearing No.AP 07TU 3489 being driven by the first respondent going ahead and the first respondent drove the offending lorry in a rash and negligent manner without taking precaution and without giving any signal came from left side to right side in a negligent manner. The deceased though applied brakes but could not stop the vehicle as all of a sudden the first respondent brought the offending lorry from the left side to right side and dashed against the bus, resulting which the deceased and cleaner of the bus received grievous injuries and the deceased died while undergoing treatment. 5. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte. The third respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and further pleaded that the claim of the petitioners is excessive. 5. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte. The third respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and further pleaded that the claim of the petitioners is excessive. The fifth respondent filed counter with a plea that the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus i.e., the deceased herein and the fifth respondent is 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 due to rash and negligent driving of the van i.e., AP 07TU 3489 by its driver i.e., 1st respondent? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. None were examined on behalf of respondents, however Ex.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 the accident was not occurred due to negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal dismissed the petition. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the 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 compensation as prayed for? 11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:- In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW2. PW2 is the cleaner of the bus, who travelled along with the driver of the bus i.e., deceased in this case. The material on record reveals that PW2 lodged a complaint before the police and on the said complaint the Station House Officer, Gannavaram police station registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal held in its order that the claim petitioners did not file the charge sheet by proving that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle/ first respondent. The Tribunal held in its order that the claim petitioners did not file the charge sheet by proving that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle/ first respondent. The counsel for the appellants would submit that after completion of investigation, the Station House Officer, Gannavaram police station filed a charge sheet against the driver of the lorry i.e., first respondent. In order to prove the same, the claim petitioners filed a certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the police, after notice to the other side, before this Court. The said charge sheet and other connected record clearly reveals that the accident in question was occurred due to pure negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No.AP 07 TU 3489. PW2 who is an eye witness to the accident and who is the cleaner of the bus, who travelled along with the deceased is a natural witness and his presence at the time of accident is highly probable, therefore importance has to be given to his evidence. The evidence of PW2 also supports that because of the negligence of the driver of the lorry i.e., first respondent, the accident was occurred in which the deceased died. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the petitioners proved that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent herein. 12. In order to prove the contention of the respondents, no evidence was adduced by the respondents, except marking Ex.B1 copy of policy. To disprove the evidence of PW1 to PW3 no evidence is adduced by the respondents. The driving licence particulars of the first respondent is noted in Ex.A3 Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report, therefore, there are no violations in Ex.B1 Insurance policy and the offending vehicle lorry is insured with third respondent Insurance Company by the second respondent and the policy is in force and the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence by the date of accident, therefore, third respondent, being the insurer of the second respondent, has to indemnify the second respondent. 13. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application with a conclusion that the claim petitioners failed to prove the rash and negligent manner of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application with a conclusion that the claim petitioners failed to prove the rash and negligent manner of the driver of the offending vehicle. The claim petitioners who are none other than the wife and two daughters of the deceased filed the claim application. The case of the claimants is that the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as a driver of the bus. In order to prove the same, the petitioners did not adduce any cogent evidence to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident was occurred in the year 2007. In those days an ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.100/- per day i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum. The dependents on the deceased are three in number, therefore 1/3rd income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/3rd income is deducted, the net income available to the family members of the deceased is Rs.24,000/- per annum. Ex.A4 Post Mortem report reveals that the age of the deceased is 45 years by the date of accident. As per the decision of Sarla Verma, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is 14. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.3,36,000/- (24,000 x 14) is awarded to the claim petitioners towards loss of dependency. An amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the first petitioners, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased. In total, the claim petitioners are entitled an amount of Rs.3,56,000/- towards compensation. For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim application. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 14. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 27.06.2012 passed in MVOP No.191/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram is set aside, consequently the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.3,56,000/- towards total compensation with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,56,000/- with interest as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,56,000/- with interest as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the first appellant is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,56,000/- together with total costs and interest thereon and the second and third appellants are entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each together with interest there on. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.