Edavalli Rajyalakshmi & Others vs Yadavalli Sujatha & Others

V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- III Additional District Judge, Guntur and the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

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 section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased Nidamanuri Subbayamma in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 30.11.2012.

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

On 30.11.2012 at about 10.00 a.m. when the deceased Subbayamma along with her brother Sambaiah was proceeding to her fields, at that time, her cousin brother Yadavalli Srinivasarao, came on motor cycle bearing No.AP 7 BM 1391 and requested her to come on his motor cycle, then the deceased boarded the motor cycle, after going some distance, the rider of motor cycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner, resulting which the deceased fell down and received fatal injuries, later succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation.

The respondents 1 and 2 filed counters denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the respondents 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the death of Nidamanuri Subbayamma was caused by the vehicle i.e., motor cycle bearing No.AP 7BM 1391, in the accident due to rash and negligent act of its driver?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents.

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 riding of rider of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants towards compensation.

Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

Now, the points for consideration are:

Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent riding of the rider of offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1 and also relied on Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet. Admittedly PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. The material available on record i.e., Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR and Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet clearly goes to show that a complaint was lodged against the rider of offending vehicle two-wheeler in the police station, and the said complaint was investigated by the Sub Inspector of Police and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle two-wheeler. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident is outcome of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the two-wheeler bearing No.AP 07BM 1391. No appeal is filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

Coming to the compensation granted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claim petitioners towards compensation. The Tribunal gave a finding that the first and second petitioners are married daughters and third petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and they are not entitled any compensation as claimed by them. I am unable to accept the said finding given by the Tribunal, because the first and second petitioners are none other than the daughters of the deceased aged about 25 and 23 years respectively and they lost their mother in a road accident at the younger age. It is also important to note that prior to that accident, they lost their father also. The third petitioner, who is none other than the mother-in-law of the deceased is depending upon the earnings of the deceased, because her son died in a road accident and third petitioner’s husband also no more. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the Tribunal that they are not entitled any compensation for the death of the deceased from the respondents.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company that the rider of the two-wheeler was not having valid driving licence to ride the motor cycle at the time of accident and there is a breach in the conditions of insurance policy. Absolutely no evidence is placed by the second respondent to prove that the rider of two-wheeler in question is not having any kind of driving licence at the time of accident. Per contra, the pleadings of the petitioners go to show that the rider of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence and the offending vehicle is insured with second respondent Insurance Company and the policy is in force.

The deceased was aged about 51 years by the date of accident. It was pleaded by the claimants/ petitioners that the deceased used to earn Rs.40,000/- per annum. But absolutely no evidence is placed by the petitioners to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.40,000/- per annum by the date of accident. The accident was occurred in the year 2013. In those days an agricultural coolie can easily earn Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased was arrived at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum. The dependents on the deceased are three in number, therefore, 1/3rd income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, net annual income available to the dependents on the deceased is Rs.24,000/- (36,000 – 12,000). As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others 2009 ACJ 1298 case, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘11’. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.2,64,000/- (24,000 x 11) towards loss of dependency. The claimants are further awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- from the respondents.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order dated 16.08.2014 passed in MVOP No.40/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur and the claim amount is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,74,000/-. The petitioners are entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,24,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of payment. The first and second petitioners are entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/-each with interest thereon and the third petitioner is entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- with interest thereon. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest as ordered above, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same as ordered above, along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.