Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.138 of 2012
JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.04.2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Ananthapur, passed in M.V.O.P.No.532 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim against the respondent, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellant-Respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.
For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.
The claimants filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased K.R.Balaji Prasad in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 30.12.2007.
2 VGKRJ MACMA 138 of 2012 4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows: On 30.12.2007 at about 5.20 a.m., on NH-205 near Harish school, in the limits of Patnam Police station, the driver of respondent’s bus bearing No.AP11Z 3227, hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle, on which K.R. Balaji Prasad, hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’, was conductor, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.AP02U 9499 on its rear side, due to that the deceased and the passengers in the bus sustained injuries and the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Ananthapur, where the doctors examined the deceased and declared him as dead. The dependents on the deceased, who are none other than the wife and children of the deceased filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.23,00,000/-.
The respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the lorry was stationed in the middle of the road without parking lights and the accident was occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the lorry and claimants already received death benefits of the deceased from the
3 VGKRJ MACMA 138 of 2012 department and they filed the present petition by suppressing the said fact and the petitioners are not entitled any compensation and the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident occurred on 30.12.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 3227 and caused the death of the deceased? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent? iii. To what relief?
During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of respondent, RW1 was examined and no document was marked.
4 VGKRJ MACMA 138 of 2012 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.16,21,544/- to the claimants towards compensation. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the respondent/APSRTC filed this appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.
Heard Sri K.Viswanatham, learned counsel for the appellant- respondent-APSRTC.
Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent?
POINT :-
The case of the petitioners is that the deceased is the husband of first petitioner and father of second and third petitioners, due to sudden demise of the deceased, they became orphans and were thrown into streets. The petitioners pleaded that the deceased
5 VGKRJ MACMA 138 of 2012 died in an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle of respondent on 30.12.2007 at about 5.20 a.m. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW3. PW1 is not an eye-witness to the accident. PW2 is an eye-witness to the accident. The evidence of PW2 clearly goes to show that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, on which the deceased was a conductor. PW2 is cited as an eye-witness in the charge sheet filed by the police. Ex.A1 is the copy of First Information Report and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of charge sheet. The evidence on record clearly proves that the APSRTC bus dashed the lorry, which was stopped on the left side of the road. On appreciation or the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived to a conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal.
Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,21,544/- towards total compensation. The case of the
6 VGKRJ MACMA 138 of 2012 petitioners is that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.12,226/- per month by the date of accident. In order to prove the same, they relied on Ex.A8 salary certificate of the deceased. Ex.A8 was proved through the employee of APSRTC. The material on record reveals that the deceased was aged about 42 years and the deceased was not an income tax assesse. As per Ex.A8, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.11,201/- per month. For convenience, the salary of the deceased was rounded off to Rs.11,200/- by the Tribunal. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others1 case, 30% of income has to be awarded in addition to the original income towards future prospects, since the deceased was a permanent employee. Accordingly, the income of the deceased came to Rs.14,300/- per month. After deduction of 1/3rd of the income for personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution by the deceased to his family members came to Rs.9,533/- per month. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘14’ and the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,01,544/- (9,533 X 12 X 14)
12009 ACJ 1298
7 VGKRJ MACMA 138 of 2012 towards loss of dependency. In addition to that amount, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner. In total, by giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,21,544/- to the claimants towards compensation. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal and it warrants no interference. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 18.08.2023. sj
8 VGKRJ MACMA 138 of 2012
51 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.138 of 2012
18.08.2023 sj