Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 507 (AP)

K. Lakshmi Kantha v. S. Karuna

2024-05-02

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2024
JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 18.02.2002 in M.V.O.P.No.186 of 2000, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor ('Tribunal' for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the petitioners on account of death of K. Kamalapathy (hereinafter will be referred to as 'deceased') in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 28.10.1995, awarded a sum of Rs.2,53,400/-. 2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners, who laid a claim under 'no fault liability' under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, before the tribunal is that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. First petitioner is wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are minor children of the deceased. K. Kamalapathy (deceased), driver of the lorry bearing No.A.P.02-T-1944 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'offending vehicle') was driving the said lorry. On 28.10.1995 he was moving from Hyderabad to Chittoor in the offending lorry and at about 4-00 a.m., it was proceeding on NH.7-4 kilometres away from Rangapuram village, near culvert 160/1, Pebberu Mandal. He found a car coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner in high speed without answering dim and dip signals. As the opposite vehicle was coming in high speed rashly and negligently and in order to avoid head collision with the car, the deceased turned his vehicle to its extreme left side of the road and avoided a major accident saving number of lives. In the course of major accident, lorry turned turtled and fell into a pit on the left side of the road. He received serious injuries and died on the spot. Police registered a case in Crime No.151 of 1995 under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was earning monthly wages of Rs.3,500/- i.e., salary of Rs.1,500/- and special allowances of Rs.100/- per day. The first petitioner lost her consortium at the age of 28 years. The lorry of the first respondent was validly insured with the second respondent. Hence, the claim of compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The deceased was earning monthly wages of Rs.3,500/- i.e., salary of Rs.1,500/- and special allowances of Rs.100/- per day. The first petitioner lost her consortium at the age of 28 years. The lorry of the first respondent was validly insured with the second respondent. Hence, the claim of compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The first respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that it is true that the deceased Kamalapathy, driver of the offending vehicle of the first respondent died in the road accident on 28.10.1995. It is true that he was paying Rs.1,500/- per month as salary besides Rs.100/- per day towards beta. The petitioners are the sole legal heirs of the deceased. The amount claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, but, the first respondent was not aware of the manner of the accident. Lorry was insured with the second respondent and policy was in force. Hence, second respondent is liable to pay compensation. 5. The second respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition. He contended that the policy particulars mentioned in the petition by the petitioners are not clear. Amount claimed by the petitioners is excessive. Deceased drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and met with accident. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal settled the following issues for trail: (1) Whether the petitioners are only legal representatives of the deceased K. Kamalapathy? (2) Whether the accident was caused due to the composite negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.A.P.02-T-1944 or the driver of the opposite lorry or anyone of them? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom? Later, the tribunal at the time of judgment re-casted issue No.2 as follows: Whether the deceased-Kamalapthy died in a road accident while driving the lorry bearing No.A.P.02-T-1944? 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 copy of policy was marked. 8. 7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 copy of policy was marked. 8. The tribunal on hearing both sides and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence held that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and the deceased died in the road accident while driving lorry bearing No.A.P.02-T-1944 belonged to first respondent which was insured with second respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.2,53,400/- towards compensation. The petitioners feeling that the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable, filed the present MACMA. 9. Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the point for determination is whether the award, dated 18.02.2002 in M.V.O.P.No.186 of 2000, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, in awarding compensation of Rs.2,53,400/- as against the original claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation? POINT:- 10. Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that there was admitted pleading by the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle to prove that he used to pay salary of Rs.1,500/- per month to the deceased apart from daily beta of Rs.100/-. The tribunal erroneously held that the appellants did not prove the salary certificate produced by them. According to Ex.A.6, salary certificate, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.3,500/- per month, as such, appellants are entitled to original compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, the award of the tribunal needs to be interfered with. 11. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel, Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, appearing for the second respondent/insurance company is that in view of the judgment in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 1/4th is to be deducted but not 1/3rd as done by the tribunal. 12. It is to be noted that the claim was laid under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, 1988. The judgment was delivered by the tribunal on 18.02.2002. According to schedule of Section 163-A in a claim under 'no fault liability' firstly the tribunal has to ascertain the income of the deceased and thereafter has to deduct 1/3rd. 12. It is to be noted that the claim was laid under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, 1988. The judgment was delivered by the tribunal on 18.02.2002. According to schedule of Section 163-A in a claim under 'no fault liability' firstly the tribunal has to ascertain the income of the deceased and thereafter has to deduct 1/3rd. The act of the tribunal in deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards living expenses is in fact affecting the quantum of compensation because if 1/4th is deducted, compensation will be more. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the second respondent/insurance company. 13. There is no dispute that the tribunal proceeded to decide the claim under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, 1988 and held that the lorry bearing No.A.P.02-T-1944 involved in the accident which caused the death of the deceased. It is to be noted that according to the pleadings of the petitioners, the deceased used to get a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. The first respondent is no other than the owner of the offending vehicle, who did not enter into witness box. Ex.A.6 was certificate produced by the petitioners which was in serious dispute. Insurance company is disputing the quantum of salary. The petitioners did not examine the person, who issued Ex.A.6. Apart from this, even according to the petitioners, the original salary of the deceased was Rs.1,500/- per month and the rest of amount towards special allowance. It is a case where the petitioners did not prove the salary properly. The tribunal rightly ascertained the notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. The contention of the appellants that the tribunal erroneously fixed up the income as Rs.2,000/- deserves no merits. 14. A perusal of the order of the tribunal reveals that the tribunal on reasonable basis fixed up the income of the deceased and awarded just and reasonable compensation to a tune of Rs.2,53,400/-. Under the circumstances, absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the tribunal. 15. In the result, the MACMA is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. The second respondent shall deposit the rest of compensation, if any, within a period of one month from this day. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.