Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 386 (AP)

Ganguri Nagaraju v. Ganguri Krishnavaeni

2023-02-14

T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.10.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.112 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, (for short “the tribunal”), the respondents 4 and 5 therein have preferred the present appeal, questioning the award passed by the tribunal, for not granting compensation to them. 2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of Shiva Shankar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.07.2008. The claimant is the wife and respondents 4 and 5 are the parents, of the deceased. 4. The claimant’s case is that on 24.07.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased secured a TVS victor motorcycle bearing No.AP 5 AF 6618 from his friend to go to Digamarru village, Palakollu Mandal, to visit his elder sister’s house, deceased, his mother, and his niece, proceeded towards Digamarru village on a motorcycle; when they reached nearby Shivanjaneya nursery, Pottilanka village, a Ford Icon Car bearing No.AP 37 AK 7755, (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing the horn, came in the opposite direction from Ravulapalem to Vemagiri in the wrong route and hit the motorcycle on which the deceased, his mother and a minor girl were travelling. As a result of the accident, all three on the motorcycle fell on the road. The rider of the motorcycle, the deceased herein, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. 5. Respondents 1 to 3, the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, have filed their respective written statements. Respondents 4 and 5, parents of the deceased, have filed a written statement. 6. Respondents 1 to 3, in their respective written statements, contended that the deceased failed to follow the motor vehicle rules and allowed the triple ride on a two-wheeler. As such, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. 7. Respondents 4 and 5, parents of the deceased, have filed a written statement. 6. Respondents 1 to 3, in their respective written statements, contended that the deceased failed to follow the motor vehicle rules and allowed the triple ride on a two-wheeler. As such, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. 7. Respondents 4 and 5 in the written statement contended that the allegation made in the claim petition that they expressed their wish that they do not want money to allot their share is denied. The deceased is only their son, and they depend on the earnings of the deceased, and the 4th respondent is unable to earn money by rickshaw pulling. The 5th respondent is unable to move from the bed. The 4th respondent is old aged and unable to pull a rickshaw for their livelihood. The claimant went to her parents' house by leaving them, she filed the claim with false allegations. 8. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, during the trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 got examined, marked Exs.A.1 to A.5; on behalf of respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 got examined, marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. After evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver; awarded compensation Rs.3,15,600/- against respondents 2 and 3 with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till realization. However, as seen from the order, the tribunal has not awarded compensation to the parents of the deceased by giving certain reasons. Respondents 4 and 5 have preferred the present appeal with a request to award compensation in their favour. 9. Heard both the learned counsel. 10. During the hearing, learned counsel for the appellants (respondents 4 and 5 in the M.V.O.P.) contended that the appellants were residing along with the deceased. They were solely dependent on the deceased and Respondent No.1. Due to his old age, is unable to work. The tribunal failed to see that the deceased was the only son of the appellants; they have lost their livelihood on account of the death of the deceased, and being the old parents; they are also entitled to compensation along with the first respondent (the claimant in the M.V.O.P.). Due to his old age, is unable to work. The tribunal failed to see that the deceased was the only son of the appellants; they have lost their livelihood on account of the death of the deceased, and being the old parents; they are also entitled to compensation along with the first respondent (the claimant in the M.V.O.P.). It is submitted that they had dealt with numerous problems while bringing their son and that they performed the marriage of their son with the claimant just one month before the accident. The claimant who is the deceased's wife ignored the appellants who had sacrificed their lives to bring up the deceased. 11. Learned counsel for the first respondent (the claimant in M.V.O.P.) and respondents 2 to 4 (respondents 1 to 3 in M.V.O.P.) have supported the findings and observations of the tribunal. 12. Now the point for determination is whether the tribunal is justified in not awarding the compensation to the parents of the deceased. POINT : a. The tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is not disputed by the respondents. Furthermore, the finding of the tribunal that the death of the deceased occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident is also not disputed. It is also evident from Ex.A.2, a copy of the charge sheet; Ex.A.3, a copy of the inquest report; and Ex.A.5, a copy of post-mortem examination report. b. The finding of the tribunal that the first respondent is the offending vehicle’s driver, the second respondent is the offending vehicle’s owner and the third respondent is the offending vehicle’s insurer and as such respondents 2 and 3 are vicariously liable to pay the compensation amount is also not disputed by any of the parties. The quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is also not disputed by the respondents. c. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that respondents 4 and 5 are financially sound; hence, they expressed their wish that no compensation amount is allotted to their share. The counsel for respondents 4 and 5 cross-examined the claimant, wherein it is elicited that she, her husband and in-laws lived together; her mother-in-law also received some injuries in the accident; her mother-in-law is unable to attend any work due to her injuries and due to old age. The counsel for respondents 4 and 5 cross-examined the claimant, wherein it is elicited that she, her husband and in-laws lived together; her mother-in-law also received some injuries in the accident; her mother-in-law is unable to attend any work due to her injuries and due to old age. During the lifetime of her husband, they all depended upon him for their livelihood. After her husband’s death (deceased herein), she went to her parent's house, as her in-laws have any other house property and they had no permanent source of income for their livelihood. Her in-laws have not given any document relinquishing their right to claim compensation. It is further elicited in P.W.1’s cross-examination that, respondents 4 and 5 (parents of the deceased) are depending on the earnings of the deceased, it disproves the stand taken by the claimant in the claim petition as well as in the chief affidavit that respondents 4 and 5 are financially sound to meet their livelihood. d. On the other hand, the tribunal has discussed in its order that respondents 4 and 5 have also examined as R.Ws. 1 and 2 and stated that they had financially sound, they need not want any amount from this O.P. towards their share as they are not claiming any share in the O.P. In view of the said evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2, entire claim amount is allotted to the claimant. The said observation is contrary to the evidence elicited in P.W.1’s cross-examination. e. In view of the said observation, this court has gone through the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2. R.W.1, G.Govindamma (Respondent No.5 in M.V.O.P.), stated in her evidence that the deceased was their only son, they were depending upon the earnings of the deceased, and they lived jointly along with the deceased. In the cross-examination, R.W.1 stated that for the last five months, her husband did not attend to rickshaw pulling, earlier he used to attend; she denied the suggestion that they were not depending upon the earnings of the deceased. It is suggested to R.W.1 in the cross-examination that still her husband is a rickshaw puller and used to earn something and both can independently live on the income of her husband. Coming to the evidence of R.W.2, Ganguri Nagaraju (respondent No.4 in M.V.O.P.), he also stated in similar lines to the evidence of R.W.1. It is suggested to R.W.1 in the cross-examination that still her husband is a rickshaw puller and used to earn something and both can independently live on the income of her husband. Coming to the evidence of R.W.2, Ganguri Nagaraju (respondent No.4 in M.V.O.P.), he also stated in similar lines to the evidence of R.W.1. In the cross-examination he stated that her daughter-inlaw at present residing at her parents' house without any avocation. f. The evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 shows that the finding of the tribunal that they deposed that they are financially sound and they need not want any money from this O.P. is totally incorrect. A reading of the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 shows that they have not deposed like so, as observed in the tribunal. It shows without going through the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2, the tribunal has given incorrect findings. If the tribunal has gone through the counter, depositions of respondents 4 and 5, and cross-examination of P.W. 1, such a finding could not be given. g. Recording of such findings, without perusal of the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 is unwarranted. Before giving the said finding, the tribunal should have carefully gone through the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2. When the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 is clear and there is no ambiguity in their evidence, it is incomprehensible and unimaginable as to why such an incorrect finding was given by the tribunal depriving the old parents of the deceased to get their legitimate share in the compensation amount. h. This court reiterates that recording such finding by the tribunal without proper look at the evidence is highly regrettable and objectionable. In the said facts of the case, this court finds that the tribunal has given incorrect finding regarding the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 though they have not deposed like so. They have clearly stated in their evidence that they have no means for their livelihood, they were purely depending on the earnings of the deceased and the said version of R.Ws.1 and 2 was corroborated with the version of P.W.1’s cross-examination. In the said facts of the case, the tribunal erred in not granting compensation amount to respondents 4 and 5. Grant of compensation will not necessarily bar the parents to claim prospective loss and it will be valid. In the said facts of the case, the tribunal erred in not granting compensation amount to respondents 4 and 5. Grant of compensation will not necessarily bar the parents to claim prospective loss and it will be valid. A reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. i. The Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. In this case, the tribunal erred in not awarding compensation to the parents of the deceased without reading the evidence adduced by the claimant and the respondents 4 and 5. j. Hence this court is inclined to award compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. to the mother of deceased/5th respondent and Rs.50,000/- to the father of deceased/4th respondent, out of the compensation awarded by the tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part without costs granting a compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till realization to the share of respondent No.5 and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the share of respondent No.4, out of the compensation awarded by the tribunal. The appellants/ respondents 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares on filing appropriate application before the tribunal. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.