Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 142 (AP)

United India Insurance Co Ltd. v. K. Sarojamma

2026-02-06

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2026
JUDGMENT : B.S.BHANUMATHI, J. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and the award, dated 21.07.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.150 of 2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The claimant filed cross objections in the appeal filed by the insurance company. 3. The appellant is the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 is the claimant, the respondent No.2 is the respondent No.1 and the respondents Nos.3 & 4 are the respondents Nos.3 & 4 before the Tribunal. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as before the Tribunal. 5. The case of the claimant, is briefly, as follows : The claimant seeks compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest and costs on account of the death of late K.Janaki Ramaiah in a road accident. The claimant is the wife and the respondents Nos.3 & 4 are the sons of the deceased. On 26.12.1999, at about 6.30 p.m., while the deceased, along with his son / respondent No.3, was going to his rice mill at Lakshmipuram village driving a car bearing registration No. AP 21 E-4474, near Chinese Dhaba Hotel on National Highway No.7, a lorry bearing No.TN 27 U 7821, owned and insured by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and driven by its driver at high speed, dashed against the car of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries to his head. He succumbed to the injuries in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, while undergoing treatment. On a report given, a case in Crime No.160 of 1999 was registered by the Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluk police station under Section 304-A I.P.C. against the driver of the lorry. The deceased was aged about 58 years. He was hale and healthy before the accident and earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum doing business in rice. He was also the Chairman of Vijaya Durga Degree College, Kurnool and a member of Chamber of Commerce, Railway Consultative Committee and A.P. State Rice Millers Association. 6. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 7. The respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the case of the petitioner in all aspects and further stating briefly as follows: The deceased overtook a vehicle and dashed against the lorry as a result of which the lorry turned turtle and fell into a roadside ditch. 6. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 7. The respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the case of the petitioner in all aspects and further stating briefly as follows: The deceased overtook a vehicle and dashed against the lorry as a result of which the lorry turned turtle and fell into a roadside ditch. It clearly indicates that the driver of the lorry was not at fault. In fact, the driver of the lorry tried to avoid head-on collision with the car. The report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that the lorry was in good condition. The deceased also contributed to the accident. The deceased was heavily indebted to others. He disposed of all his properties. In that connection, some of the creditors, one of his sons and his brother, by name, Krishanaiah Setty filed insolvency petitions. The deceased did not file income tax returns for two years prior to his death. The deceased, along with his brother, started finance schemes and swallowed crores of rupees. Had the deceased been alive, he would have faced criminal charges. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. The driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence. The vehicle had no valid permit by the date of the accident. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. On behalf of the petitioner, she herself was examined as P.W.1 and exhibits A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and exhibits B1 to B4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents Nos.3 & 4, respondent No.3 was examined as R.W.2, but no document was marked. 9. Before the Tribunal, it was argued that the deceased himself was at fault and further that the criminal case filed against the driver of the lorry ended in acquittal by the High Court in Criminal Revision Case No.944 of 2001, dated 17.11.2004 / Ex.B2. The driver of the lorry was examined as R.W.1. The claimant relied on the evidence of respondent No.3 examined as R.W.2 citing him as an eye witness to the accident alleging that he was in the car along with the deceased. The driver of the lorry was examined as R.W.1. The claimant relied on the evidence of respondent No.3 examined as R.W.2 citing him as an eye witness to the accident alleging that he was in the car along with the deceased. Considering the evidence of R.W.2 and the documentary evidence in the crime record, by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur and observing that R.W.1 is a witness interested in the case, the Tribunal held that the accident in question was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, with regard to the contention of the claimant regarding the business and income of the deceased, the Tribunal observed that the claimant failed to place sufficient material as necessary witnesses were not examined to prove that the deceased paid income tax as per Exs.A7 to A10 or by producing relevant statement of account in support thereof and also by examining any other witness regard his being a member of the committees or Chairman of the Degree College. The Tribunal concluded that the deceased was aged about 60 years basing on Exs.A2 and A3. Finally, without independently evaluating the income of the deceased at least on notional basis, a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- was granted under several heads together, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, funeral expenses, loss of earnings, medical expenses, compensation for love and affection and compensation for loss of earning power. 11. As regards the entitlement of the respondents Nos.3 & 4 to the compensation, the Tribunal held that they are also entitled to some portion of amount of compensation awarded. Thus, the petition was allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum payable from the date of the petition till the date of payment and proportionate costs to the petitioner and the respondents Nos.3 & 4 with a joint and several liability of the respondents Nos.1 & 2. 12. Aggrieved by the decree and the award, this appeal was preferred by the respondent No.2 / insurance company. 13. 12. Aggrieved by the decree and the award, this appeal was preferred by the respondent No.2 / insurance company. 13. The appellant / insurance company contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the rashness and negligence of the driver of the lorry and no independent witness was examined to prove the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry. The appellant further contended that the Tribunal ought to have applied the principle of composite negligence and apportion the negligence. It further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has no valid basis from the evidence on record. 14. In the cross objections, the claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation in lump sum amount without assessing the quantum of compensation separately under various heads; that the Tribunal failed to take note that the deceased was hale and healthy and earning huge income from his business and also being the correspondent of the College; that the findings of the Tribunal are based on surmises and conjectures without properly appreciating the evidence on record. She further contended that the amount of compensation awarded is meager as against the legitimate claim of Rs.25,00,000/-. 15. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There was no representation for the respondent No.1 / cross objector or the respondents Nos.2 to 4. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant argued as per the grounds raised in the appeal. 17. A perusal of the award of the Tribunal indicates that it has attached undue importance to the principle of res ipsa loquitur to the present case merely basing on the fact that the lorry fell down in the road side ditch and the mere fact that the accident occurred. The Tribunal committed error in totally ignoring the evidence of R.W.1 just on the ground that he is an accused with the charge of rash and negligent driving against him. It is settled law that irrespective of the proceedings on criminal side, the Tribunal has to independently evaluate the evidence before it. The insurance company contended that R.W.2 was not present at the time of the accident in the car. The evidence of R.W.1 as P.W.1 in the criminal case against the driver of the lorry is filed before the Tribunal (as Ex.B4). Admittedly, the claimant is not an eye witness. The insurance company contended that R.W.2 was not present at the time of the accident in the car. The evidence of R.W.1 as P.W.1 in the criminal case against the driver of the lorry is filed before the Tribunal (as Ex.B4). Admittedly, the claimant is not an eye witness. Except the evidence of R.W.2, on one side and the evidence of R.W.1 on the other side, there is no other evidence of an independent eye witness, since R.W.2 / respondent No.3 is also an interested witness, being the son of the claimant and the deceased and also as he has right of receiving compensation, though he is arrayed as the respondent. Therefore, the evidence of both the respondents Nos.1 and 2 regarding the accident stand on the same footing insofar as self interest is concerned. According to R.W.1, to avert the head-on collision, he swerved the vehicle to the extreme left as a result of which the lorry fell on the road side. If that be the case, it must be understood that the driver of the lorry had done his best to avert the accident, but became victim of the accident. However, it is also to be kept in mind that the police laid charge sheet only against him after making investigation. But, the criminal case ultimately ended in acquittal. 18. It is settled principle of law that proof of criminal charge requires higher degree of proof. Whereas, in case of a claim under a beneficial legislation, like the M.V.Act, the preponderance of probabilities is the principle adopted. Therefore, merely because in the criminal appeal, the accused was acquitted, it cannot be taken that the accident was caused solely due to the negligent driving of the deceased. Considering all these facts and circumstances, it would be proper to conclude that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed to the accident and their contribution can be fixed at equal ratio. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the lorry alone is responsible to cause the accident is liable to be set aside by holding that the drivers of both the vehicles equally contributed to the accident. 19. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal rightly concluded that there is no sufficient proof placed by the claimant. 19. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal rightly concluded that there is no sufficient proof placed by the claimant. Though the claimant made a huge claim of compensation taking a plea that the deceased used to conduct business and was member in several institutions noted in the claim petition, there is no evidence in support of the same, except filing Exs.A7 to A10. Moreover, they pertain to the year relevant to the year in which the accident occurred. Therefore, the evidence under these documents cannot be taken as absolute truth. The petitioner failed to file any such documents relating to the previous years. In the absence of proof of actual income, the Tribunal can only make notional assessment. 20. In the present case, without specifying the amount under each head of compensation and separately evaluating the notional income of the deceased, a lump sum amount of compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. Of course, the settled practice is to evaluate the amount of compensation separately under each head. Though specific pleadings were taken by the insurance company regarding the indebtedness of the deceased and filing of insolvency petitions, no reply affidavit / rejoinder was filed by the claimant denying the same. Therefore, even if some notional income is taken into consideration, it is also difficult to evaluate how much of it could be appropriated for the personal expenses of the deceased. Under the peculiar circumstances in the present case, granting lump sum amount cannot be set aside on the ground that each head of compensation is not separately indicated. Therefore, neither the contention of the appellant / insurance company that the amount awarded is excessive nor the contention of the cross objector / claimant that the amount awarded is too low can be accepted. 21. In view of the finding that the drivers of both the vehicles are equally liable for the accident, the amount of compensation awarded shall be reduced to 50%. The apportionment of amount of compensation between the claimant and the respondents Nos.3 & 4 shall be proportionately reduced. 22. 21. In view of the finding that the drivers of both the vehicles are equally liable for the accident, the amount of compensation awarded shall be reduced to 50%. The apportionment of amount of compensation between the claimant and the respondents Nos.3 & 4 shall be proportionately reduced. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed by reducing the amount compensation from Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.60,000/- while the rest of the award shall remain intact subject to the proportionate reduction in the apportionment of the amount of compensation between the claimant and the respondents Nos.3 & 4 as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal. 23. The cross objections are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs in the appeal and the cross objections. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.