Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 91 (AP)

Chinthabathina Dhanamma v. Ranjit Kumar Mahato

2025-01-10

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2025
JUDGMENT : The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1041 of 2017, who are the wife, son and daughter of the deceased, Chennaiah, preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.424 of 2022 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1167 of 2017, who are the wife, two children, parents of the deceased, Sambasiva Rao, preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.425 of 2022 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , for enhancement of the compensation. The claimants 2 & 3 being minors are represented by their mother, the 1 st claimant. The father of the deceased died during the pendency of this appeal. 3. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: All the claimants, including the deceased, are residents of Guntur district. On 21.08.2017, at about 11 pm, the deceased Chennaiah was proceeding in his lorry bearing No.AP07 TT 8939 as its driver from Narasaraopet to Karnataka State along with owner of the lorry (deceased Sambasiva Rao). When they reached near Jagarlamudivaripalem fly over on the National Highway No.16 road, they stationed the lorry. While so, the 1 st respondent, being the driver of the other lorry bearing No.TN 04 AQ 0913, drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the stationed lorry and ran over the deceased causing his death on the spot. The matter was reported to the Station House Officer, J. Pangaluru Police Station. The Station House Officer, Pangaluru P.S registered a case in Crime No.88 of 2017 under Section 304-A IPC against the 1 st respondent for his rash and negligent driving of the lorry. a. The case of the appellants/claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1041 of 2017 (M.A.C.M.A.No.424 of 2022) is that the deceased Chennaiah was aged 46 years, working as driver and getting Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased had a heavy vehicle driving licence and if he were alive, he would have earned more and spend the same on the claimants. On account of the accident, the claimants lost their sole bread winner and suffered mental agony. The 1 st claimant lost her conjugal happiness due to the premature death of her husband. The deceased had a heavy vehicle driving licence and if he were alive, he would have earned more and spend the same on the claimants. On account of the accident, the claimants lost their sole bread winner and suffered mental agony. The 1 st claimant lost her conjugal happiness due to the premature death of her husband. b. The case of the appellants/claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1167 of 2017 (M.A.C.M.A.No.425 of 2022) is that the deceased Sambasiva Rao was aged about 30 years and getting Rs.15,000/- per month as owner and driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 07 TT 8939 and if he were alive, he would have earned more and spent the same on the claimants. The deceased was the only earning member and on account of his sudden death, the claimants suffered mental agony and lost their future support. They are the only legal heirs and dependants on the income of the deceased. c. The 1 st respondent beign the driver and the 2 nd respondent being the owner and the 3 rd respondent being the insurer of the lorry bearing No.TN 04 AQ 0913 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation for the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent/driver. d. The respondents 1 & 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. e. The 3 rd respondent filed counter in both the original petitions with common averments as follows: The age and income of the deceased, the manner of the accident and the alleged involvement of the lorry in the accident are denied. If the 2 nd respondent allowed his driver/1 st respondent to drive the vehicle without possessing valid and effective driving licence, the 3 rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation due to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The claimants did not produce any documents to show that the driver had valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The 2 nd respondent failed to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time and place of accident. The 1 st respondent did not commit any act of negligence as alleged. The alleged accident occurred due to the own negligence and fault of the deceased who stopped his lorry on the middle of the road without following traffic rules and without using signal indicators. The 1 st respondent did not commit any act of negligence as alleged. The alleged accident occurred due to the own negligence and fault of the deceased who stopped his lorry on the middle of the road without following traffic rules and without using signal indicators. No documentary proof was filed to establish the age and income of the deceased. The claim of interest @ 12% per annum is highly excessive and contrary to the Interest Act, 1978. The petitions are not maintainable for non-joinder of the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 07 TT 8939 involved in the accident. The claimants are not entitled to any compensation from this respondent and the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether Chintabathina Chennaiah (Ganapati Sambasiva Rao) died in the accident occurred on 21.8.2017 at about 11 PM near J.V.Palem fly over on NH-5 road, Prakasam district due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing No.TN 04 AQ 0913? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief? 5. During trial, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 & 2 and marked documentary evidence exhibits A1 to A7. The respondents examined RW1 and exhibits B1 to B3 were marked on their behalf. 6. Exhibit A1 is the certified copy of the FIR in crime No.88 of 2017 registered for the offence under Section 304-A of J-Pangulluru police station, Prakasam District, exhibit A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet in Crime No.88 of 2017, exhibit A3 is the certified copy of inquest report, dated 22.08.2017, exhibit A4 is the certified copy of postmortem certificate, dated 24.08.2017, of the deceased issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Addanki, exhibit A5 is the certified copy of M.V. Inspector report issued by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ongole, exhibit A6 is the certified copy of rough sketch of the scene of offence prepared by the Station House Officer, J-Panguluru police station, exhibit A7 is the driving licence of the deceased. Exhibit B1 is the attested copy of policy issued in favour of respondent No.2, exhibit B2 is the attested copy of rough sketch in Crime No.88 of 2017 and exhibit B3 is the attested copy of scene observed report in Crime No.88 of 2017. 7. On the basis of materials brought on record before the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimants in O.P.No.1041 of 2017 (M.A.C.M.A.No.424 of 2022) in part and awarded compensation of Rs.8,57,000/-. It allowed the claim of the claimants in O.P.No.1167 of 2017 in part by awarding a compensation of Rs.13,62,000/- (M.A.C.M.A.No.425 of 2022). The Tribunal further directed that the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 8. Hence, these two appeals by the claimants in the respective claim petitions. 9. The main contention of the legal representatives of the driver is that the monthly income of a skilled person like driver of Heavy Motor Vehicle must be taken as Rs.10,000/-, but the Tribunal had taken @ Rs.6,000/- and that no amount of compensation was awarded under the head of ‘love and affection’. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that no amount of compensation for funeral expenses was awarded and also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajwati @ Rajjo and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others , [Civil Appeal No.8179 of 2022, dated 09.12.2022] wherein the monthly income of a driver working in PNC Infratech Ltd. Was taken as Rs.11,225/- basing on proof of actual income. Therefore, this decision does not help the claimants with regard to the monthly income. But, in the year 2017, for a person like a driver of heavy motor vehicle having valid licence, monthly income @ Rs.6,000/- is on low side and it can be taken as Rs.7,500/-. Accordingly, the amount of compensation for loss of estate comes to Rs.09,75,000/-. Since no amount of loss of parental consortium was awarded to the children, who are the 2 nd and the 3 rd petitioner/claimants, both of them shall be granted Rs.44,000/- each. Further compensation for funeral expenses of Rs.30,000/- shall be awarded. Therefore, a total amount of Rs.11,70,000/- shall be granted to the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1041 of 2017. Since no amount of loss of parental consortium was awarded to the children, who are the 2 nd and the 3 rd petitioner/claimants, both of them shall be granted Rs.44,000/- each. Further compensation for funeral expenses of Rs.30,000/- shall be awarded. Therefore, a total amount of Rs.11,70,000/- shall be granted to the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1041 of 2017. Funeral expenses and the enhanced amount of compensation due to increase in the monthly income shall be taken by the wife, whereas the children are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each.The rest is as per the award. 10. Similarly, the legal representatives of the owner of the lorry who died in the accident (MVOP No.1167 of 2017), contended that the monthly income of the deceased was taken by the Tribunal on very low side @ Rs.6,000/- as against the claim of Rs.15,000/- and also that no amount of compensation was awarded for loss of love and affection for the children and the parents and for funeral expenses. In fact, no proof of income of the deceased was proved. Therefore, it is only a guess work. In a business, there can be loss or profit. Hence, there is no error in the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in fixing notional income of the deceased. But, since no amount of compensation for filial consortium etc was granted to the other claimants while awarding compensation to the wife/claimant, the other claimants are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each and Rs.30,000/- for funeral expenses. Therefore, these claimants are entitled to Rs.2,06,000/- above what was awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, they are entitled to Rs.15,68,000/-. The funeral expenses shall be taken by the wife and the Rs.44,000/- each shall be taken by the claimants other than the wife, in addition to what was awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the rest of is as per the award. 11. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.