Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Adipudi Rajyalakshmi And Others vs Chebrolu Ankamma Rao And Others on 10 April, 2014
Author: B. Chandra Kumar
Bench: B. Chandra Kumar
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
M.A.C.M.A. No.848 of 2005
10-04-2014
Adipudi Rajyalakshmi and others Appellants
Chebrolu Ankamma Rao and others Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:Sri A. Rama Rao
Counsel for the Respondents:Sri K.K. Chakravarthy
<Gist :
>Head Note:
?Cases Referred:
1. (2013) 9 SCC 54
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
M.A.C.M.A. No. 848 of 2005
Judgment:
This appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the
award dated 04.11.2004 passed in MVOP No. 280 of 2000 by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur,
whereby and whereunder the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.50,000/- out of the total claim of Rs.3,00,000/-.
The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
The brief facts of the case are as follows. On 20.06.1998 the
deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on the scooter of the first
respondent bearing no.AP-7E-2148. When they reached near Pothuru the
accident occurred. It is alleged that the driver of the Trolley bearing No.
AAV 8485 parked the same along the left side of the road without any
signal lights. Consequently the Scooter dashed against the Trolley. The
deceased sustained injuries and died. The owner of the scooter
respondent No.1 was admittedly driving the scooter at the time of
accident. He lodged a complaint to the police Guntur Taluk, wherein a
case in Crime No.169 of 1998 was registered against the Trolley driver.
The police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The
police filed final report holding that no case is made out against the
scooter driver, however the police filed a case against the driver of the
stationed trolley in STC No.241 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judicial
Magistrate of II Class, Guntur. The driver of the trolley pleaded guilty and
accordingly he was convicted.
It appears that the first respondent owner of the scooter and the
third respondent remained ex parte. Respondents 2 and 4 filed separate
counters. According to the fourth respondent, the first respondent driver
of the scooter is responsible for the accident. But, it is the case of the
first and second respondents that the driver of the Trolley is responsible
for the accident as he has parked the vehicle without any indicators and
without any parking lights.
It is a fact that no eye witness was examined on behalf of the
claimants, however certified copies of FIR, Inquest report and charge
sheet were marked as Exs.A1 to A3 and certified copies of charge sheet,
examination of accused and docket orders in STC No.241 of 1998 were
marked as Exs.B1 to B3.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to
prove the negligence either on the part of the first respondent or the
driver of the third respondent. The Tribunal held that since the claimants
failed to prove the negligence aspect they are entitled to compensation of
only Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. The said award of the Tribunal is
under challenge in this appeal.
As far as the claimants are concerned, they have filed Exs.A1 to A3
and as far as the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned they have filed
Exs.B1 to B3. However, surprisingly the Tribunal observed that in view of
Ex.A3 referred charge sheet the fourth respondent shall pay the amount
of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants.
There cannot be any doubt to say that the accident occurred while
the deceased was travelling on the scooter. It is also not in dispute that
the first respondent, owner of the scooter was driving the scooter. It is
also not in dispute that the trolley was parked along the left side of the
road. The police have filed a final report stating that the first respondent
is not responsible for the accident. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of charge
sheet in STC No.241 of 1998, reveals that the police found that the driver
of the trolley is responsible for the accident and accordingly he was
charge sheeted. The relevant record in STC No.241 of 1998 shows that
the trolley driver appeared before the Court and he admitted his guilt and
he was convicted under Section 283 IPC. The trolley is a big vehicle. The
accident occurred at about 07.30 PM. Even if the vehicle is parked in the
road margin, if it is parked without any parking lights and any indicators it
has to be held that the driver of the said vehicle is negligent in parking
the vehicle. It may not be possible for drivers of vehicles passing on the
road to observe the vehicle parked without any parking lights till they are
very nearer to such vehicle and it will be difficult for them to avoid
accidents. In this case the driver of the trolley is not examined. No other
witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents. When there is no
rebuttal evidence, evidence on record has to be appreciated. In the
circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have discarded Exs.B1 to B3.
These documents reveal that the driver of the Trolley pleaded guilty
before the Criminal Court. This important circumstance was over looked
by the Tribunal. Thus, it is clear that the finding of the Tribunal on this
aspect is erroneous. It may not be possible to examine the eye witnesses
in all accident cases. Even if the first respondent is examined, his version
may be termed as interested witness.
Though initially I thought that it is better to remand the matter for
awarding just and reasonable compensation, but in view of the fact that
the matter has been pending since more than 8 years, I am inclined to
dispose of the appeal.
PW.1 is the wife of the deceased. According to PW.1 the deceased
was working as a licenced document writer and earning Rs.5,000/- per
month. He was aged about 44 years at the time of accident. Certain
documents have been filed i.e., Ex.A5 certificate issued by the Sub-
Registrar, Parchur in support of the case of the claimants that the
deceased was a document writer. PW.2 is working as Sub-Registrar,
Purchur. According to him the deceased was working as document writer
with district licence No.14/83 and state licence No.7 of 1990. Ex.X1 is the
relevant entry in the document writers licencing register. By stretch of no
imagination it can be said that the income of the deceased would be less
than Rs.4500/- per month, moreover the future increase in the income
should be kept in mind. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 I consider it just and
reasonable to determine the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per
month. If 1/3 is deducted towards personal expenses, the loss of
dependency comes to Rs.3,000/- per month and annual loss of earnings
would come to Rs.36,000/-. If the same is multiplied with appropriate
multiplier 14 the total loss of earnings comes to Rs.5,04,000/-. The first
claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and the
claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the
total compensation comes to Rs.6,29,000/-.
In case between Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh , the Apex Court
observed that the Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the claims
made by the claimants, to award and reasonable compensation.
In the light of the above judgment, the MACMA is allowed awarding
total compensation of Rs.6,29,000/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a.,
from the date of petition till realisation. Out of the said compensation
amount the first claimant shall take Rs.2,29,000/- and the costs and the
claimants 2 and 3 shall take each Rs.2,00,000/-. Since the claimants have
claimed only Rs.3,00,000/- as total compensation amount, they are
directed to pay the deficit court fee before drafting the decree. However,
in the circumstances, no costs in the appeal.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
appeal shall stand closed.
______________________
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
Date: 10.04.2014