AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J
The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.113 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The appellant filed the appeal 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 claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of P.Ramesh Naidu, who is husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.11.2008.
The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows:
On 08.11.2008 the deceased was going on a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03D 6528 along with his brother by name Venugopal Naidu as a pillion rider to go to Chittoor and when they reached near Thalupulapalli village on Chittoor-Piler road, a mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 03U 1930 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. On a complaint given by P.Venugopal Naidu, brother of the deceased, a case in crime No.104 of 2008 was registered by Puthalaput P.S. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the crime lorry, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
The respondents filed written statements separately by denying the manner of accident and age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded by the 1st respondent that the accident occurred on account of negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased and there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime lorry. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company that the deceased did not have driving licence, the deceased himself drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the crime lorry, and there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and the driver of the lorry.
Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:
1) Whether the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the mini lorry bearing No.AP 03U 1930 or the deceased P.Ramesh Naidu himself while riding the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.AP 03D 6528?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
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.10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and accordingly, granted an amount of Rs.22,57,760/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company preferred the present appeal.
Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company contended that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the Tribunal erred in following the rule of law while awarding compensation.
Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court?
POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the accident and he deposed in his evidence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. He also denied the suggestion that the accident occurred only on account of negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased himself. The petitioners also relied on Exs.A.1 and A.2. Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the lorry. Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge discloses that after completion of investigation into the accident, the police laid a charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. Having pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased himself and there was contributory negligence on his part, the respondents did not examine any witnesses on their behalf much less the driver of the offending lorry as he is competent to speak about the manner of accident. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 clearly proves that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. On appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged 33 years on the date of accident and he was working as Hawaldar in the Indian Army and drawing salary of Rs.16,650/- p.m. As per Ex.A.8-salary certificate of the deceased, the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.16,650/-. P.W.3, who is the concerned official of the deceased, stated that Ex.A.8-salary certificate was issued by their Department and apart from salary, the deceased was given free ration, clothing, medical facilities and accommodation.
Considering the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A.8-salary certificate of the deceased, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.16,650/-. To the said amount, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680, 50% from out of monthly income has to be added towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged 33 years and having so added, the annual income of the deceased was arrived at Rs.2,99,700/- (Rs.24,975/-(Rs.16,650/- + Rs.8,325/-) x 12 months). On the said amount, 30% has to be deducted towards income tax. Therefore, the net annual income was arrived at Rs.2,09,790/- (Rs.2,99,700/- - Rs.89,910/-). The dependants on the deceased are three in number. After deducting 1/3rd from out of the net annual income and by applying the multiplier ‘16’ to the age group of the deceased, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (4) SCJ 91 , the Tribunal rightly arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.22,37,760/- (Rs.1,39,860/- (Rs.2,09,790/- minus Rs.69,930/- - 1/3rd personal expenses) x multiplier ‘16’). The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner. In all, a sum of Rs.22,57,760/- was awarded towards compensation to the petitioners.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in my view, is just and reasonable. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
With regard to liability, the Tribunal in its order rightly held that as the driver employed by the 1st respondent is responsible for the accident, the 1st respondent is vicariously liable to pay the compensation, similarly, the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the 1st respondent is also liable to pay the compensation, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
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.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, while confirming the decree and order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, in M.V.O.P.No.113 of 2009. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.