Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs Swaran Singh And Others on 18 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No. 3864 of 2012
JUDGEMENT:
The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.
3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of A.Venkata Narasaiah, who is husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 07.11.2007.
2
VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012
4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows:
On 07.11.2007 the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing registration No.AP 03W 7513 from K.V.B.Puram to Srikalahasti and when the auto reached near Sivanadhapuram of Thottambedu Mandal at about 4.00 p.m., a tractor-trailer bearing registration No.AP 03C 7594 & 7595 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came in opposite direction and dashed the auto, as a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in the Area Hospital, Srikalahasti. A case was registered against the driver of the offending tractor-trailer. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending tractor, therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
5. Both the respondents filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It 3 VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012 is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the accident arose due to negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending tractor and the driver of the offending tractor had no valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:
1) Whether the deceased A.Venkata Narasaiah, husband of first petitioner and father of second and third petitioners, died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 7.11.2007 at about 4 p.m. near Sivanadhapuram village of Thottambedu Mandal on Srikalahasti-Pitchatur main road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor cum trailer bearing regn.
No.AP 03C 7594/7595 belonging to the first respondent, insured with second respondent?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
4
VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.
8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting an amount of Rs.5,03,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directing the 2nd respondent/Insurance company to deposit the amount in the first instance and later recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal.
9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.
5
VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012
10. The appellant pleaded that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- without any evidence and also failed to see that the driver of the offending tractor did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and thereby, the 1st respondent/owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
11. Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court?
12. POINT: The claim is made under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act whereunder the petitioners need not prove the rash and negligent driving. In order to establish the accident, the petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. P.W.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased, is not an eye witness to the accident. In her evidence, she reiterated the pleadings of the petition. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that he witnessed the incident and his evidence is supporting the case of 6 VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012 the petitioners. Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet clearly prove that the offending tractor was involved in the accident, a case was registered against the driver of the tractor, and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid on the driver of the tractor. From the above oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the petitioners established that the death of the deceased caused only on account of the accident in which the offending tractor-trailer involved. The Tribunal, on appreciating the material evidence on record, also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
13. It is the pleading of the petitioners that the deceased used to do contract and pandal works and earn Rs.10,000/- p.m. In support of the same, they got examined P.W.3 and got marked Ex.A.5-DCB Register and Ex.A.6-bunch of receipts for electricity service connections. As per the evidence of P.W.3, the deceased did such contract works in Srikakalahasti Devasthanam from 1998 to 2004. 7
VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012 Further, a perusal of Ex.A.3-inquest report shows that the occupation of the deceased was noted as 'cultivation'. But, there is no material on record to show the avocation of the deceased and his earnings out of it as on the date of accident that occurred in the year 2007. Therefore, the petitioners failed to establish the income of the deceased. However, by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- i.e., Rs.48,000/- p.a. and fixed the age of the deceased as 49 years based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A.3-inquest report and Ex.A.4-post mortem certificate. The dependents on the deceased are three in number. So, after deducting 1/3rd from out of the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the appropriate multiplier '13' as per the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Sarla Varma case, the Tribunal rightly arrived the loss of dependency to the family members of the deceased at Rs.4,16,000/- (Rs.32,000/- (Rs.48,000/- - Rs.16,000/-) x multiplier '13'). Apart from that, by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses to shift the dead 8 VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012 body of the deceased, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased, Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards loss consortium to the 1st petitioner/wife of the deceased. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,03,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners. This Court feels that there is no illegality or irregularity in awarding the said quantum of compensation, therefore, it warrants no interference.
14. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is owner of the offending tractor and he insured the offending vehicle with the 2 nd respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of accident.
15. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent that the driver of the offending tractor was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and thereby, the 1st respondent violated the conditions of the policy, therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. R.W.2, who was examined on behalf of the 9 VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012 2nd respondent, deposed in his evidence that the driver of the tractor did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor and he possessed driving licence to drive auto non-transport and transport with effect from 27.09.2007. Through R.W.2, the driving licence extract of the driver of the tractor was marked as Ex.B.2. The evidence of R.W.2 coupled with Ex.B.2 clearly proves that the driver of the offending tractor was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and thereby, the 1st respondent violated the conditions of Ex.B.1-policy.
16. In view of the above reasons and in the light of the principle laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others1, the Tribunal rightly directed the 2nd respondent/insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners in the first instance and later recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 1 2004 (2) ALD (SC) 36 10 VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012
17. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the findings given by the Tribunal and the impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference and the appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, while confirming the decree and order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2008. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.
_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J th 18 July, 2023 cbs 11 VGKR,J MACMA No.3864 of 2012 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3864 of 2012 18th July, 2023 cbs