AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Aggrieved by the award dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, in M.V.O.P.No.443 of 2012, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,28,000/- to the petitioners as against their claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, this instant appeal is preferred by the petitioners for enhancement of the compensation.
For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.
The claim petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Rayavarapu Venkata Musalinaidu, who is husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.02.2012.
The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:
On 27.02.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased as a cleaner along with the driver of an oil tanker bearing registration No.AP 31W 1577 were proceeding on the said oil tanker from Vizag to Yanam with a load of diesel and when they reached opposite to Sri Gopal Baba Ashramam, by-pass road, Pithapuram at about 5.00 a.m. on 28.02.2012, the driver of the oil tanker drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the rear portion of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.AP 5TT 9108, which was stopped on the road margin, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. The S.H.O., Pithapuram Town P.S. registered a case in crime No.36 of 2010 against the driver of the oil tanker for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending oil tanker, hence, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte. The 3rd respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that due to negligence of the driver of the tipper lorry, the accident occurred, as he stopped the said vehicle suddenly and without giving signals, the deceased was not working as a cleaner under the 2nd respondent, the deceased is an unauthorized passenger travelling in the goods vehicle against the conditions of the policy, therefore, the Insurance company prays to dismiss the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
Whether the motor vehicle accident took place on 28.02.2012 at about 5.00 hours near Gopal Baba Ashramam, Pithapuram, due to rash and negligent driving of the oil tanker bearing No.AP 31W 1577 by its driver resulting death of Rayavarapu Venkata Musalinaidu?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
To what relief?
During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent/Insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked.
At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending oil tanker and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment against all the respondents. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claim petitioners filed the instant appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
Heard Sri G.Sainarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners, and Smt.V.Durga, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance company and perused the record.
Now, the points for determination are:
1) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and
2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?
POINT Nos.1 and 2 : The case of the petitioners is that on 27.02.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased as a cleaner along with the driver of an oil tanker bearing registration No.AP 31W 1577 were proceeding on the said oil tanker from Vizag to Yanam with a load of diesel and when they reached opposite to Sri Gopal Baba Ashramam, by-pass road, Pithapuram at about 5.00 a.m. on 28.02.2012, the driver of the oil tanker drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the rear portion of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.AP 5TT 9108, which was stopped on the road margin, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased.
In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending oil tanker, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. No doubt, P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending oil tanker, which is well corroborated by Ex.A.1-copy of first information report and Ex.A.4-copy of charge sheet. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending oil tanker. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
Coming to the compensation, the dependents on the deceased are the wife and the daughters of the deceased. Though it is the case of the petitioners that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/-, they failed to prove the same. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived the daily income of the deceased at Rs.150/- i.e., Rs.4,500/- per month and Rs.54,000/- per annum. No appeal or cross-objections is filed by the respondents against the said finding. Evidently, the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of accident and the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘13’. After deducting 1/3rd from out of annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the multiplier ‘13’, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.36,000/- (Rs.54,000/- - Rs.18,000/-) x multiplier ‘13’) towards loss of dependency.
As seen from the material on record, the accident occurred in the year 2012. In those days, an ordinary coolie can easily earn Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per day. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.5,000/- i.e., Rs.60,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd from out of annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the multiplier ‘13’, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- (Rs.60,000/- -Rs.20,000/-) x multiplier ‘13’) towards loss of dependency to the family members of the deceased.
Further, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/-under conventional heads i.e., Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the maximum amount to be awarded under conventional heads is Rs.70,000/- only. Therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner, and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased.
In total, a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- is awarded towards compensation to the petitioners.
Admittedly, the offending oil tanker of the 2nd respondent was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1-policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of the accident. On appreciation of the entire material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. No appeal or cross-objections is filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.5,90,000/-. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.62,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st petitioner, who is wife of the deceased, is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.