Sakhamuri Rama Mohan Rao & Others vs Kavuri Venkateswarlu & Others

V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J

The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.855 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali 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 140 and 163-A of A.P.Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 445 and 476 of A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of their son Sakhamuri Saisri Harsha in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 14.05.2011.

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

On 14.05.2011 at about 4.10 p.m., at Chenchupet, Tenali, while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle, the driver of lorry  bearing  No.AP  16TX  2138  drove  the  same  in  a  rash  and negligent  manner  and  hit  the  deceased  Saisri  Harsha,  resulting which the deceased fell down from his motor cycle and sustained multiple  injuries,  later  succumbed  to  injuries  and  the  petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation.

The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimants and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the second 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 had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16TX 2138?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? 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.A6 were marked. None were examined on behalf of respondents, however Ex.B1 was marked.

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.2,48,000/- 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 driving of the driver of offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet and also relied on the evidence of PW1. PW1 is none other than the mother of the deceased. The claim application is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. The law is well settled that in a claim under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, there is no need to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle by the claimants. The claimants proved that the accident in question was occurred in a Motor Vehicles Accident caused by the offending lorry bearing No.AP 16TX 2138 by its driver, resulting the death of the deceased. The Tribunal came to conclusion and gave a finding that the accident in question was occurred by use of the lorry bearing No.AP 16TX 2138 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. No appeal is filed by the respondents against the said finding.

Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,48,000/- to the claimants towards total compensation. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal fixed the annual income of the deceased was Rs.36,000/- notionally i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. On considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is just and necessary to fix the notional income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum instead of Rs.36,000/- per annum. Since the claim application is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, even though the deceased was a bachelor, 1/3 of income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per II schedule of Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident. The relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of deceased is 17. If 1/3rd amount is deducted, the net income available to the dependents on the deceased is Rs.26,667/- (40,000 – 13,333). Accordingly, an amount of Rs.4,53,339/- (26,667 x 17) is awarded to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.

The Tribunal came to conclusion that the first petitioner is not the dependent on the earnings of his son. Second petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased was only dependent on the earnings of her son and entire compensation was ordered to the second petitioner. On considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards funeral, obsequious and conveyance and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of estate. Accordingly, Rs.14,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal under the Conventional Heads. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal in awarding compensation of Rs.14,000/- under the Conventional Heads. Accordingly, the second petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.4,67,339/- towards total compensation. It is the case of both sides that there are no violations in Ex.B1 policy and the offending vehicle is insured with second respondent Insurance Company and the policy is in force and the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence by the date of accident.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order dated 30.11.2012 passed in MVOP No.855/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali, consequently the claim amount is enhanced from Rs.2,48,000/- to Rs.4,67,339/-. The second petitioner is entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,19,339/-with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.2,19,339/- with interest as ordered above, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the second appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

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