Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 508 (AP)

Vendikatla Veerakka v. C V Ramana Reddy

2025-03-21

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act ’) is filed by the appellants/claimants impugning the award dated 06.06.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in MVOP.No.146 of 2006. 2. Heard arguments of Sri KMR Bala Prasad, the learned counsel for appellants and Sri K.Rama Mohan Rao, the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2/ insurance company. 3. Sri V.Hassan Sab was aged 28 years and was a coolie earning Rs.3,000/- per month. On 21.03.2006 at about 5 PM, along with his brother, he was walking on the left side of the road in village at which time a mini lorry bearing registration No.KA 04 A 1184 was driven by its driver rashly or negligently which came from behind the pedestrians and dashed Sri V.Hassan Sab leading to his spot death. His brother PW.2, having witnessed the incident, lodged written information which was registered as Cr.No.41 of 2006 at Mydukur Urban Police Station as evidenced by Ex.A1/ FIR. After due investigation, a chargesheet was laid against the driver of the offending lorry as evidenced by Ex.A3/ charge sheet. The dead body was subjected to inquest/ Ex.A4 and autopsy as per Ex.A2. The offending vehicle was examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector who gave a report stating that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect of the vehicle as evidenced by Ex.A5. It was in such circumstances, praying for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under section 166 of the MV act, the mother and sister of the deceased filed MVOP.No.146 of 2006. It was pleaded that the wife of the deceased left him, two years ago and whereabouts were not known, and she was stated to be living with another person. Therefore, she was not made a party to MVOP.No.146 of 2006. The owner of the offending vehicle was R1. At the material point of time, the vehicle was stated to have been validly insured by National Insurance Company Limited and therefore, it was made as R2. Before the tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the petition and specifically contended that the claim was not maintainable, since the wife of the deceased was not made a party. 4. Before the tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the petition and specifically contended that the claim was not maintainable, since the wife of the deceased was not made a party. 4. Learned claims tribunal settled following issues for trial. 1. Whether the deceased died in a motor accident on 21.03.2006 at about 5.00 pm due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.KA-04-A-1184 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 5. The mother of the deceased testified as PW.1 and the eyewitness to the incident who was the brother of the deceased testified as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 6. After due consideration of the evidence, the learned claims tribunal held that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending mini lorry. It did not assess the compensation that could be granted to the legal representatives who made the claim. It stated that the wife of the deceased was a dependent and was also a legal heir of the deceased and her non impleadment is fatal and accordingly, it dismissed the claim. 7. Aggrieved by it, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred this appeal under section 173 of the MV Act . Learned counsel for appellants contended that mere non impleadment of wife ought not to have resulted in dismissal of the claim and learned claims tribunal committed legal error in doing so. That the mother and unmarried sister of the deceased were factually and legally dependent on the deceased and rejecting granting any compensation to them is illegal. Even on facts, the whereabouts of the wife of the deceased were not known and the fact that the wife was living with another person and was not a dependent remained undisputed by evidence. Learned counsel for appellants cited precedent. 8. R1 did not choose to appear and contest. Learned counsel for R2/insurance company contended that the wife of the deceased was a necessary party and her non impleadment was questioned before tribunal below. Despite that no steps were taken by the claimants. Learned counsel for appellants cited precedent. 8. R1 did not choose to appear and contest. Learned counsel for R2/insurance company contended that the wife of the deceased was a necessary party and her non impleadment was questioned before tribunal below. Despite that no steps were taken by the claimants. Therefore, the learned claims tribunal rightly disallowed the claim and no interference is called for. 9. The following points fall for consideration. 1. What could be the just compensation? 2. Whether non impleadment of wife of the deceased disentitles the mother and unmarried sister of the deceased from praying for compensation? Point No.1 10. From the evidence on record, the undisputed facts are that the deceased was aged 28 years and was stated to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month. No tangible evidence was available in proof of such income. The incident occurred way back in the year 2006. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to think that the monthly income of the deceased could have been Rs.2,100/- per month. 1/3 rd of it is Rs.700/- and that has to be deducted towards his possible personal living expenses. Thus, the net monthly income comes to Rs.1,400/-. The annual income comes to Rs.16,800/- In terms of the ruling in Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation, [2009 (6) SCC121] , for those in the age group of 26 to 30 years, multiplier 17 is to be applied to the multiplicand. Therefore, Rs.2,85,600/- should be considered towards loss of dependency. Towards conventional heads such as loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- is granted. Thus, it comes to Rs.3,00,600/-. Since the claim was for Rs.3,00,000/- and the arguments advanced here pray only for that the compensation that could be called as just compensation in the case at hand is recorded as Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence the point is answered in favour of the appellants. Point No.2 11. The relationship of the appellants/ claimants to the deceased are undisputed. 1 st appellant is the mother and the 2 nd appellant is unmarried sister of the deceased. The sworn evidence of PW.1 and 2 is that they were dependent on the deceased. Evidence contrary to it was not brought on record by the respondent/ insurance company. Point No.2 11. The relationship of the appellants/ claimants to the deceased are undisputed. 1 st appellant is the mother and the 2 nd appellant is unmarried sister of the deceased. The sworn evidence of PW.1 and 2 is that they were dependent on the deceased. Evidence contrary to it was not brought on record by the respondent/ insurance company. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the deceased was Sunni Muslim and the mother and unmarried sister are also legal heirs remained unchallenged by the respondent/ insurance company. Be that as it may. It is not the question of heirship that governs a claim for compensation but it is the dependency that governs the subject matter. On facts, the unchallenged evidence indicated that mother and unmarried sister of the deceased were fully dependent on the deceased. Therefore, the learned claims tribunal ought not to have rejected their claim in toto. 12. According to both sides, the deceased was a married man. The evidence of the mother of the deceased who testified as PW.1 was that the wife of deceased left the deceased long back and has been living with some other person and by the time, the claim petition was filed and even thereafter, they could not gather her address so as to make her a party. When she was subjected to cross-examination, nothing contrary to this was elicited by the insurance company. No evidence contrary to this to the effect that wife was available and was not living with another person or that she was also a dependent on the deceased were not brought on record by the insurance company. Thus, the wife, though could be said to be a heir of the deceased, on facts she was not dependent on the deceased. Even if it is considered that she was his dependent, non impleadment of her by itself is not a ground to reject the claim which was filed under section 166 of the MV Act . The mandate of the statute to the extent relevant is to be extracted here. 166. Even if it is considered that she was his dependent, non impleadment of her by itself is not a ground to reject the claim which was filed under section 166 of the MV Act . The mandate of the statute to the extent relevant is to be extracted here. 166. Application for compensation .—(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. 166(2)….. 166(3)…… 166(4)…… 13. The above legislative direction is crystal clear that all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to raise their claim. Thus, non-impleadment of one of the dependents can never be a ground to reject the claim of other legal representatives/dependents. It could further be said that those claimants who receive the compensation could be said to be holding share of other left out dependent as a trustee to her. The left out dependent, if she believed, that she was also a dependent, can claim her share from these claimants/ appellants. Learned counsel for appellant cited • Manager V. Raju s/o Tulsiram , 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 2287 . • Ugni Bibi V. Gobind Ram Hathampuria , 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 35. • Erramreddy Mamatha V. G.Sreeramulu Naidu , 2024 Supreme (Online) (AP) 14467 . The principle laid down in those rulings is to the effect that the necessary parties are those without whose presence, the court cannot determine the real matter or controversy between the parties in dispute. • Ugni Bibi V. Gobind Ram Hathampuria , 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 35. • Erramreddy Mamatha V. G.Sreeramulu Naidu , 2024 Supreme (Online) (AP) 14467 . The principle laid down in those rulings is to the effect that the necessary parties are those without whose presence, the court cannot determine the real matter or controversy between the parties in dispute. In the claim petition filed before the claims tribunal, the controversy was whether the death was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and if so how much was the compensation that could be paid to the dependent legal representatives and who had to pay. In the presence of two dependents/ legal representatives, the controversy between them and the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company the above referred facts could be decided in terms of law. The presence or absence of one of the dependents could not hinder adjudication. Nothing contrary is cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. In such circumstances, refusal of the claims tribunal to grant any compensation to the claimants cannot be countenanced. 14. From the record, it is undisputed that the crime vehicle was validly insured and insurance policy was in force by the time of subject matter accident. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are obliged to shoulder the responsibility in paying the compensation. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the appellants. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 06.06.2012 in MVOP.No.146 of 2006 is set aside. Consequently, MVOP.No.146 of 2006 is allowed granting compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2/ National Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay compensation within two months from the date of this judgment. 1 st appellant/mother of the deceased is entitled to 2/3 rd share in the compensation and the accrued interest and costs. 2 nd appellant is entitled to 1/3 rd share in the compensation and the accrued interest and costs. Learned claims tribunal shall disburse the amounts in the said proportions to the appellants/claimants. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.