Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 392 (AP)

Thummaluru Sesha Reddy v. K. Raheem Saheb

2023-02-15

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT: The appellants are claimants in M.V.O.P.No.255 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, at Kadapa. 2. The parties in the appeal will be referred as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The Claimant has filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of MV Act, for claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 09.05.2006 at 11:00 P.M. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 09.05.2006 at about 10:30 PM., the deceased Thummaluru Sankara Reddy and one Naga Subba Reddy were going on a Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No. AP 26 A 8997 from their village to go to Mydukur, and, the Naga Subba Reddy was pillion rider of the said motor cycle and the deceased and Naga Subba Reddy were going ahead of the motor cycle No. AP 21 H 3298 and at about 11:00 P.M., when they reached near Kundu river bridge, then the 1st respondent lorry driver bearing No. AP 21 W 1247 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without blowing horn and dashed against the motor cycle bearing No. AP 26 A 8997 in which the deceased was a pillion rider and as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and died at this spot itself. 5. The claimants further pleaded that because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247 the accident taken place. 6. The 1st respondent filed a written statement and pleaded that at the time of accident he is driving the vehicle in a slow manner but admitted the involvement vehicle in a road accident. 7. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all the allegations in the petition and contending that the accident had occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 26 A 8997, and the owner and insurer of the said motor cycle are the proper and necessary parties to the petition. 8. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether the deceased died in a motor accident that occurred on 09.05.2006 at 11:00 PM., due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. AP 21 W 1247 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked. 9. Now, the point for consideration are : (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247. (2) Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is just and reasonable? POINT NO. I: (1) PW1 is the 1st petitioner, according to the 1st petitioner he is not an eye witness to the accident and P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident and his evidence goes to show because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247, the accident is took place. 10. The petitioners relied on Ex.A1 to A5, Ex.A1 is certified copy of the F.I.R, and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the charge sheet, and Ex.A5 is certified copy of the MVI report, Ex.A1 coupled with Ex.A4 and with evidence of P.W.2 clearly goes to show that the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247, it is not disputed by the respondent Insurance Company about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 1247 and because of his rash driving the accident is occurred Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered. POINT NO. II (1) The Petitioners claimant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,82,000/-, aggrieved against the said order the claimants filed the present appeal for enhancement of the claim, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company has not filed in appeal against the quantum granted by the Tribunal. 11. The 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner are the parents of the deceased and 3rd petitioner is the brother of deceased, the relationship of the claimants with deceased not in a dispute herein in the present case. 11. The 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner are the parents of the deceased and 3rd petitioner is the brother of deceased, the relationship of the claimants with deceased not in a dispute herein in the present case. As per the documentary evidence the deceased was age about 24 years by the date of accident. 12. The learned Tribunal has fixed the income of deceased has earn Rs.15,000/- P.A. As per the case of the petitioners the deceased used to cultivate the land also used to do labour work, the accident is occurred in the year 2006. In those days an ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.2,000/- per month, therefore, the Annual Income of the deceased fixed by Tribunal for Rs.15,000/- P.A is enhanced to Rs.24,000/- P.A here the deceased was a bachelor therefore, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased if 50% is deducted Net Income available to the dependency on the deceased is 12,000/- P.A, As per the case of the petitioners and as per the evidence on record the age of the deceased is 24 years, the multiplier applicable to the age group of deceased, as per decision of the Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, is ‘18’ therefore the compensation for loss of dependency is fixed Rs.2,16,000/- (Rs.12,000x18) in spite of Rs.1,70,000/-. 13. The Tribunal granted Rs.2000/- towards funeral and obsequies of the death of deceased and also the Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal with regard to compensation under the head of funerals and obsequies expenses and loss of love and affection, therefore in total the claimants are entitled Rs.2,28,000/- towards the compensation. 14. Therefore, the award dated 05.03.2010 passed in MVOP.No.255 of 2006 on the file Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, at Kadapa, is modified accordingly. 15. In the result appeal is allowed in part by modifying the Order dated 05.03.2010 passed in MVOP.No.255 of 2006. 16. It is held that the appellants are entitled total compensation of Rs.2,28,000/- with interest of 6% P.A on the enhanced the compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment by respondents. 17. 15. In the result appeal is allowed in part by modifying the Order dated 05.03.2010 passed in MVOP.No.255 of 2006. 16. It is held that the appellants are entitled total compensation of Rs.2,28,000/- with interest of 6% P.A on the enhanced the compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment by respondents. 17. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance of amount within one (1) month from the date of the judgment on such deposit the appellants are entitled with accrued interest and all the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the balance amount equally with proportionate costs and interest. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. 19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.