Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 347 (AP)

R. Kalaselvi v. K Beeran Kutty

2025-02-24

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
JUDGMENT: This Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased assailing the award dated 05.12.2006 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.320 of 2003. 2. Heard arguments of Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, the learned counsel for appellants. For respondent No.1, Sri V.Subramanyam, the learned counsel made appearance but no arguments were submitted. For respondent No.2-Insurance Company, Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel submitted arguments. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: This is a case of an auto-mobile accident that occurred on 02.05.2002 at about 4:15 P.M. at Tirupati-Renigunta main road, near Vartha Paper Press. In this incident Sri R.Rajendra Reddy died. About the auto-mobile accident police registered F.I.R./Ex.A.1. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid as per Ex.A.5. The deceased was subjected to inquest/Ex.A.3 and was subjected to autopsy/Ex.A.4. At the relevant time mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 03 T 6787 was owned by Sri K.Beeran Kutty/respondent No.1 herein. He got it insured as per Ex.B.1-insurance policy. On the date of the accident/02.05.2002, the insurance policy was effective. Sri B.Venugopalachari was stated to be the driver of the mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 03 T 6787 and at the material point of time he was holding a valid and effective driving licence. There were no violations of insurance policy conditions. To speak about the manner in which the auto mobile accident occurred there was on record the evidence of PW.2-Sri K.Karupuswamy. At the material point of time the deceased-Sri Rajendra Reddy was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 04 B 7069 and PW.2 was the pillion rider. 4. Grieved by the death of Sri Rajendra Reddy, his wife, two minor children, parents filed M.V.O.P.No.320 of 2003 before the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. They prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and laid their claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The first respondent therein was the owner of the alleged offending mini lorry. Respondent No.2 therein was the insurance company. On behalf of the owner/respondent No.1 therein it was pleaded that the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving of the driver employed by him and the whole fault lies with the motorist/deceased. The first respondent therein was the owner of the alleged offending mini lorry. Respondent No.2 therein was the insurance company. On behalf of the owner/respondent No.1 therein it was pleaded that the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving of the driver employed by him and the whole fault lies with the motorist/deceased. It was positively pleaded that the motorist in the effort of overtaking the lorry hit the lorry and fell down and died. Insurance company in its pleadings stated that there was no fault on part of the driver of mini lorry. It was positively pleaded that it was a case of hit and run and the alleged mini lorry was falsely implicated in the incident and there was collusion on part of the claimants and respondent No.1. 5. After analysis of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal categorically held that while the deceased was driving his motorcycle the alleged mini lorry came on his back side and dashed the motor bike and caused his death (vide page No.5 of the impugned award). About the involvement of the alleged offending mini lorry, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the evidence was not satisfactory and F.I.R. was registered six months after the incident and therefore, it held that it was a case of hit and run and there was no negligence of the driver of the alleged mini lorry in this incident. While at page No.6 of the impugned award the learned Claims Tribunal recorded that there were no violations of conditions of the insurance policy and compensation is to be paid to the claimants, the liability was on part of the owner as well as the insurance company. However, in view of the fact that the subject matter accident was not proved to have been one out of rash or negligent driving of mini lorry, it dismissed the claim. It did not make any assessment of the possible compensation. 6. Aggrieved by it the claimants preferred this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants seriously contended that the evidence was improperly appreciated and the learned Claims Tribunal was unreasonable in dismissing the claim and the learned counsel prayed for just compensation. 8. It did not make any assessment of the possible compensation. 6. Aggrieved by it the claimants preferred this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants seriously contended that the evidence was improperly appreciated and the learned Claims Tribunal was unreasonable in dismissing the claim and the learned counsel prayed for just compensation. 8. Learned counsel for insurance company while agreeing to the fact that there was valid and effective insurance policy and it pleaded to indemnify in the event of proof of the case and the view taken by the Claims Tribunal is based on evidence and therefore, no interference is called for. 9. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the impugned award is erroneous on facts and law requiring interference?” POINT: 10. PW.2 is the eyewitness to the incident. His evidence was believed by the Claims Tribunal. The fact it concluded which remained undisputed in this appeal is that the other vehicle came on the back side of the motorcycle and dashed it leading to the spot death of Sri Rajendra Reddy. As noticed earlier, police registered a crime. The investigating officer testified as RW.1. His evidence was that they charge sheeted the driver of mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 03 T 6787. The clear evidence of RW.1 was that the driver of the offending vehicle himself had come and surrendered. The learned Claims Tribunal held that F.I.R. was not registered soon after the accident. Further F.I.R. does not contain the details of the mini lorry and its number. It held that driver of the said vehicle surrendering after a gap of about six months raised a grave suspicion in its mind. For those reasons, it was held that the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving on part of the driver of the alleged offending mini lorry. 11. Having considered the material on record and the submissions made on both sides, this Court is unable to support the above finding of the Claims Tribunal. It was in the evidence of RW.1 which remained unchallenged that PW.2 also sustained injuries in this incident and he fell unconscious. The learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award made an observation that since the alleged offending mini lorry came from behind there was no possibility for PW.2 to observe its registration number. It was in the evidence of RW.1 which remained unchallenged that PW.2 also sustained injuries in this incident and he fell unconscious. The learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award made an observation that since the alleged offending mini lorry came from behind there was no possibility for PW.2 to observe its registration number. The undisputed fact on record is that the owner of the offending mini lorry positively pleaded that his driver was not at fault but the deceased was at fault. It was not his case that his mini lorry was not involved in this accident. It is also an undisputed fact that the driver of the said mini lorry voluntarily went and surrendered before the police. Why he surrendered and why such surrender should be suspected are the matters to be considered. According to the insurance company, there was a collusion between the claimants on one hand and the driver and owner of the alleged offending mini lorry. In proof of such collusion, no positive evidence was led by insurance company. Its theory is to be tested on what was brought on record. Could it be said that one who did not drive the mini lorry at the material point of time would come and surrender either before the learned Magistrate or before the police so as to face a charge of offence under Section 304A I.P.C. which would possibly result in suffering punishment in the form of imprisonment as well as fine. There was no positive evidence indicating as to how the legal representatives of the deceased hold influence over the owner and driver of the offending mini lorry. Neither side examined the driver of the offending vehicle. It was never the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the mini lorry was not involved in the accident. Its finding was only that the driver of it was not rash or negligent. For benefit, paragraph No.10 of the impugned award is extracted here: “10. It is the contention of the petitioners that the pleaded accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of mini lorry bearing No.AP 03 T 6787 and as a result the deceased Rajendra Reddy and that they are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. For benefit, paragraph No.10 of the impugned award is extracted here: “10. It is the contention of the petitioners that the pleaded accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of mini lorry bearing No.AP 03 T 6787 and as a result the deceased Rajendra Reddy and that they are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. But in view of the result on Issue No. 1 it is clear that the petitioners failed to establish that the negligence lies with the driver of mini lorry bearing No.AP 03 T 6787. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation from the respondents 1 and 2. This issue is held accordingly.” 12. The evidence of PW.2 and the evidence of RW.1 and the investigative outcome as seen from Ex.A.5-charge sheet clearly disclosed involvement of mini lorry bearing registration No. AP 03 T 6787. It cannot be said that such vehicle was not involved in this accident. It is a clear case where the learned Claims Tribunal committed grave error in disbelieving the evidence on record and reaching to conclusions on mere suspicions. Therefore, it is recorded here that Sri Rajendra Reddy died an instantaneous death on 02.05.2002 at 4:15 P.M. because of rash or negligent driving of mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 03 T 6787 by Sri B.Venugopalachari. Respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the said vehicle. Respondent No.2 herein is the insurer of it. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded must be shouldered by them. 13. From the material on record the deceased could be stated to be aged about 40 years. Going by the ratio in Sarla Verma v. DTC, [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], multiplier ‘14’ has to be applied. In proof of his actual income there was no reliable evidence brought on record. Therefore, his income per month is taken notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month. It comes to Rs.36,000/- per year. Looking at the number of dependents 1/4th is to be deducted towards possible expenses of the deceased. Thus, the net annual income comes to Rs.27,000/-. On applying multiplier ‘14’ the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,78,000/-. Therefore, his income per month is taken notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month. It comes to Rs.36,000/- per year. Looking at the number of dependents 1/4th is to be deducted towards possible expenses of the deceased. Thus, the net annual income comes to Rs.27,000/-. On applying multiplier ‘14’ the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,78,000/-. Applying the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] , an amount of 70,000/- should be granted under the conventional heads i.e., Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/- Loss of Consortium - Rs.40,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/- 14. Hence, the point is answered accordingly by granting an amount of Rs.4,48,000/- as compensation. 15. In the result, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 05.12.2006 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati in M.V.O.P.No.320 of 2003 is set aside. An amount of Rs.4,48,000/- is granted towards compensation with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within one month before the Claims Tribunal. On such deposit, the appellants/ claimants are entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon in the following manner: First appellant/wife Rs.1,48,000/- Second appellant/daughter Rs.1,00,000/- Third appellant/son Rs.1,00,000/- Appellant No.4/father Rs. 50,000/- Appellant No.5/mother Rs. 50,000/- There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.