Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
1. Boggarapu Venkata Narayana S/O. ... vs 1.B. Venkateswarlu S/O. Narayana Aged ... on 28 August, 2014
Author: B. Chandra Kumar
Bench: B. Chandra Kumar
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1401 of 2005 28-08-2014 1. Boggarapu Venkata Narayana S/o. Ramaiah aged: about 49 years, R/o. Komatlagudem, Khamma District and another Petitioners 1.B. Venkateswarlu S/o. Narayana aged about 39 years, R/o. Mustikunta Village, Khamma Distirct and others. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S. Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Kota Subba Rao <Gist: >Head Note : ?Cases referred : (2013) 9 SCC 54 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1401 of 2005 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants - claimants challenging the order, dated 01.04.2005, passed in M.V.O.P.No.536 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Khammam.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 10.05.2000, the deceased and one Gaddam Venkateswarlu went to Khammam on the Jeep of the deceased to bring goods and after purchasing the same, while they were returning to their village, when they reached near New Colony of Pandillaplli at 11.00 p.m., a Tractor- Trailor bearing No.AP 20 3188/3189, driven by its driver 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, dashed the Jeep of the deceased, as a result of which, the Jeep driven by the deceased went off the road and the deceased received serious injuries to his vital organs and died on he spot. A complaint was given to the police. A case in Crime No.26 of 2000 was registered against the driver of the tractor and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The parents of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent contested the matter on various grounds and filed counter.
4. The trial Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the accident took place due rash and negligent driving of the driver/R.1 of the vehicle?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
After filing additional counter, the following additional issues are framed for trial:
1. Whether the deceased was in drunken state at the time of alleged accident or not?
2. Whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased while he was in a drunken state or not?
5. On behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-22 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were marked.
6. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged 23 years and earning Rs.12,000/- per month at the time of accident. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence in detail and by observing that there was delay in giving report to the police, that the driver of the vehicle was acquitted in the criminal case, that the witnesses, who were cited as eye-witnesses in the criminal case, turned hostile and none of them were examined in the O.P., and the claimants have failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, dismissed the entire claim of the claimants. Hence, the claimants filed this appeal.
7. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the application can be treated as if filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and reasonable compensation may be awarded to the claimants.
8. Father of the deceased (1st claimant) wad examined as PW.1. Admittedly, he was not present at the time of the accident. One Gaddam Venkatewarlu, who travelled along with the deceased at the time of accident, lodged the complaint to the police but, he was not examined as witness by the claimants. Whether the Tribunal was justified in considering the evidence given in the criminal case and whether basing on the findings of a criminal case, the Tribunal can say that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Tribunal, need not be considered in this appeal. Because, the primary responsibility rests on the claimants to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. Admittedly, no eye- witness was examined in this case. Though the findings of the criminal case are not binding on the Tribunal, but, however, it appears that the claimants have not adduced any satisfactory evidence in support of their contention.
9. Anyhow, in view of the recent judgments of the Apex Court, particularly, in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others , it is clear that irrespective of the claim made by the claimants, the Tribunal has to award what appears to be the just and reasonable compensation. In the said Judgment, the Apex Court has dealt with the issue of treating the report filed by the appellants as an application for compensation. The Apex Court observed that after amendment of the Act, by Act No.54/1994 with effect from 14.11.1994, the report on the Motor Vehicles Act prepared by the Police Officer and forwarded to the Tribunal under sub-Section 6 of Section 158 has to be treated as an application for compensation. Then their Lordships have referred to Section 166 (4) of the Act, which is as follows:
166. (4) Where a police officer has filed a copy of the report regarding an accident to a Claims Tribunal under this Act, the Claims Tribunal may, if it thinks it necessary so to do, treat the report as if it were an application for compensation under this Act.
10. Thus, it is clear that the report filed by a police officer should be treated as a claim application. In view of the same, it is clear that the police while filing such a report need not mention that the claimants are entitled for compensation under Section 166 or under Section 163(A) of the Act. Then it is for the Tribunal to consider whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under Section 166 or 163-A of the Act.
11. Having regard to the object of the Act and the Act being a beneficial Act to provide some relief to the victims of the Motor Accidents, or to the dependants of the persons who died in the motor accidents, I am of the view that irrespective of the fact as to whether the claimants have filed an application under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the MV Act, where in a case, the claimants have failed to prove the aspect of negligence, instead of dismissing the entire claim petition, it may be just and reasonable to award compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act. Merely because a wrong section is quoted or a claim is made under a wrong provision, if the claim petitions are dismissed, it may cause great injustice to the victims of the motor accidents. Nothing prevent the Tribunal from treating an application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act as an application filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, whereby the object of the beneficial Act can be achieved. Any provision has to be construed in such a manner by which the object of the legislation is achieved and its primary object is not defeated.
12. In the above circumstances, in this case though initially I thought to remand the matter to the Tribunal, but having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accident occurred on 10.05.2000 i.e. about 14 years ago, as requested by him, I am inclined to dispose of the application as if, it filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act.
13. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that as the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the earnings have to be deducted towards his personal expenditure. The same appears to be correct. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. The appropriate multiplier in this case is 15, according to the age of the mother of the deceased. Accordingly, the total amount towards loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,70,000/-. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.2,000- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss estate is awarded. The total compensation would come to Rs.2,74,500/-.
14. Accordingly, the MACMA is partly allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.2,74,500/- to the appellants claimants with 9% interest. Both the claimants shall share the amount equally. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J August 28, 2014.