Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 434 (AP)

Yelamanchili Atchiyamma v. Madasu Venkata Rao

2023-02-21

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The appellants are claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1098 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumIV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam, and the respondents are the respondents in the said case. 2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application. 3. The claimants are filed a Claim Petition under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for seeking compensation in an accident Rs.2,50,000.00 for the death of Yelamanchili Mahalakshmi, in a Motor Vehicle Accident, that occurred on 28/2/2009. 4. The claimant's case is that on 28/2/2009 at about 10:00 AM., the deceased was proceeding from his house towards hotel for having tea on foot and in the meanwhile the bus belonging to respondents 2 and 3 in a rash and negligent manner from Anakapalli towards Choadavaram and hit the deceased from his behind as a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his head and left leg and immediately he was removed to NTR Area Hospital and died while undergoing treatment on the same day. The Chodavaram Police also registered a case in Cr.No.21/09 under Sec. 304-A of IPC and charge sheeted the driver of the bus involved in the accident. 5. The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed their counter denying the material allegations in the petition and putting the petitioners to strict proof of the same and further according to them it is only on account of negligence on the part of the deceased who dashed the rear left side of the bus the accident occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the deceased Vis., Yelamanchili Mahalakshmi, Son of late Somulu, died in the motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 10 Z 5168 (APSRTC BUS) driven by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. 7. Now, the point for consideration is: 1) Whether the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. needs any interference? POINT NO.1 8. if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. 7. Now, the point for consideration is: 1) Whether the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. needs any interference? POINT NO.1 8. On considering the material on record Ex.A1 Attested copy of FIR and Ex.A4 Attested copy of Charge sheet, the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus i.e., 1st respondent. The respondents did not challenge the said finding and no appeal is filed by the respondents against the said finding given by the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the 2nd petitioner is a major son aged about 38 years and he is not entitled compensation, but the 2nd petitioner is entitled to received Rs.12,500.00 towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the petitioners failed to prove the relationship with the deceased, but the Tribunal granted quantum of Rs.10,000.00 towards loss of love and affection and towards loss of estate for an amount of Rs.10,000.00 and Rs.5,000.00 has awarded towards funeral expenses in total the Tribunal granted Rs.25,000.00 to the both the petitioners towards compensation. It is not a dispute that the 1st Petitioner is unmarried daughter of the deceased. 1st petitioner is examined is examined as PW1. In cross-examination nothing was elicited from PW1 discredit the testimony of PW1, it was simply suggested to PW1 in cross-examination that she is married and having children, the said suggestion is denied by PW1. 9. This Court perused pleadings taken by the respondent APSRTC there is no pleading in the written statement that the 1st petitioner is married and there is no pleading in the written statement of APSRTC that the relationship of 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner with the deceased is disputed, the finding given by the Tribunal in its order that the petitioners failed to prove the relationship is not at all correct therefore, the said finding is liable to be set-aside. At one stage the Tribunal came to conclusion that the petitioners are entitled Rs.10,000.00 towards loss of love and affection and also Rs.10,000.00 towards loss of estate and also entitled Rs.5,000.00 towards funeral expenses, but the Tribunal, unfortunately came to conclusion that the petitioners failed to prove the relationship with the deceased. As per PM report the deceased was aged about 55 years. therefore, a person who is aged about 55 years can easily earn Rs.1,000.00 per month in those days i.e., on 28/2/2009, therefore the annual income of the deceased was taken up as Rs.12,000.00 here the dependents of the deceased are two only, therefore, 1/3 income have to be deducted from out of Rs.12,000.00 towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, 4,000/- has to be deducted from Rs.12,000.00 the income available to the dependents on the deceased is Rs.8,000.00 P.A., as per the decision of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transportation Corporation reported in 2009 ACC 708 SC, the multiplier applicable to the aged group of the deceased is "11" (8000/- x11=Rs.88,000.00) is awarded towards loss of dependency to the petitioners. This court has clearly stated above Rs.10,000.00 is awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and also Rs.10,000.00 is awarded towards loss of estate Rs.5,000.00 is awarded for funeral expenses of the deceased. therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal, in total the claimants are entitled Rs.1,13,000.00 (25,000+88,000=1,13,000/-). 10. The 1st petitioner who is unmarried daughter is the dependent on the deceased, and 2nd petitioner is son of deceased, both are entitled to receive enhanced compensation of Rs.1,13,000.00 equally. 1st petitioner is entitled Rs.56,500.00 and 2nd petitioner is entitled Rs.56,500.00 with interest and costs. 11. The award dtd. 27/5/2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1098 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam is modified, accordingly. 12. In the result the appeal is allowed in part by the modifying the order dtd. 27/5/2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1098 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam. 13. It is held that the 1st appellant is entitled total compensation of Rs. Rs.56,500.00 with subsequent interest of 6% P.A. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment and 2nd petitioner is entitled total compensation of Rs. District Judge Visakhapatnam. 13. It is held that the 1st appellant is entitled total compensation of Rs. Rs.56,500.00 with subsequent interest of 6% P.A. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment and 2nd petitioner is entitled total compensation of Rs. Rs.56,500.00 with subsequent interest of 6% P.A. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment towards his share, the respondents are directed to deposit balance of amount within one (1) month from the date of Judgment, on such deposit the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same along with interest accrued there on. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. 15. As sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.