The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Katadi Manga Devi & Anr.

On 19.10.2013, at about 12.00 P.M, while the deceased along with his relative one Naagidi Gagana Vijay proceeding on his bicycle towards Mahalakshmi Nagar, Turangi Village and when they reached near Essar petrol bunk, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Kakinada on 216 National Highway, one Activa Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.PY 04 8186 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their cycle and as a result of which, K. Maheswara Rao sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

Basing on the report of father of the deceased, a case in crime No.197 of 2013 was registered of the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the rider of the motor cycle. The deceased aged about 48 years, working as hooking labourer in sea port, Kakinada, was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, as on the date of accident. Due to the sudden demise, petitioner who is the wife of the deceased lost her financial support. Respondent No.1 is the owner-Cum-rider and respondent No.2 is insurer of Activa Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.PY 04 8186. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Activa Honda motor cycle bearing No.PY 04 8186?

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent?

To what relief?

The order and decree of the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and facts, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

The learned Tribunal erroneously taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- by considering the evidence of PW.3 who is president of the union.

The learned Tribunal ought to have held that non examination of the employer and non production of certificate from employer is fatal to the case of the petitioner, and with other formal grounds, prayed to allow the appeal.

The order and decree of the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and facts, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

The learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire amount as claimed by the petitioner.

The learned Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects and should have applied multiplier of ’15’ instead of ‘13’.

The learned Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and another one lakh towards consortium to the wife of the deceased, and with other formal grounds, prayed to allow the appeal.

Whether K. Maheswara Rao died in the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of motor cycle bearing No.PY 04 8186?

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount?

Whether the order and decree dated 29.09.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.186 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, are sustainable in facts and law?

To what relief?

As seen from the record, there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the factum of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle i.e. motor cycle bearing No.PY 04 8186 in the accident. In order to prove the manner and method of accident, petitioner relied upon the evidence of PW Nos.1 and 2 coupled with EXs.A1 to A4 documents. It is evident from the record that P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased is not an eye witness to the accident and the only available evidence to prove the manner and method of accident is that of P.W.2 who accompanied the deceased at the time of accident and PW.2 testified that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of rider of the motor cycle i.e. respondent No.1, K. Maheswara Rao sustained injuries and died on the spot, and in the cross-examination of P.W.2, nothing useful material is elicited.

It is evident from the record that a case in crime No.197 of 2013 is registered under Section 304-A of the Code against the rider of the motor cycle vide EX.A1/First information report and after completion of investigation, the investigating officer found fault with the rider of the motor cycle and laid charge sheet vide EX.A4. As seen from EX.A3/Motor Vehicles Inspector report, the accident not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 failed to examine respondent No.1 who is the best person to speak about the accident and her non examination is fatal to the case of the respondents. So, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the evidence of PW Nos.1 and 2, which is buttressed by EXs.A1 and 3 to 4, clinchingly proves that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.PY 04 8186. It is evident from EX.A2/Inquest report that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, this point is answered holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of rider of the motor cycle bearing No.PY 04 8186, K. Maheswara Rao sustained injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the said injuries.

According to the petitioner, the deceased hale and healthy, aged about 48 years, working as hooking labourer in sea port, Kakinada and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, as on the date of the accident. The petitioner is dependent and due to the sudden demise of the deceased, petitioner lost financial support. Insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned, in EX.A2/Inquest report, age of the deceased is mentioned as 48 years and there is no contra evidence to that effect. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the deceased aged about 48 years, as on the date of accident and the relevant multiplier is ‘13’. The petitioner, being his wife is entitled to compensation.

As regards the income of the deceased, petitioner relied upon the evidence of PW.3/K. Raj Kumar/Secretary of Sree Vinayaka Deep Water Port Workers Union and he testified that the deceased working as hooking labour in their sea port and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and he admitted EX.A6/Salary certificate of the deceased. As seen from EX.A6/Salary certificate, the deceased working as Hooking Labourer in Sea Port, Kakinada and earning salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. There is no contra evidence to that effect. So, it can safely be concluded that monthly income of the deceased is Rs.12,000/-.

Applying the principles in Sarala Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another^{11.(2009) ACJ 1298} and National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and others^{22.(2017) 6 SCC 680}, Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others^{33.(2018) 18 SCC 130}, this Court assesses the compensation as follows:

In the court’s well considered view that in accordance with the propositions of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the compensation of Rs.16,30,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only) is just and reasonable, having regard to the loss suffered by the dependants of the deceased.

So far as liability of the respondents is considered, a finding is already given in point No.1 holding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Activa Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.PY 04 8186 i.e. respondent No.1/rider-Cum-owner. It is not in dispute that EX.B1/Policy of the offending vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident and as such, respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation. Hence, this point is answered holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

In the result, and in view of the findings in points Nos.1 to 3, this appeal is allowed, and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.12,85,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Only) to Rs.16,30,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only) together with simple interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, subject to payment of additional court fee on Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand Only) by the petitioner before the Registry within thirty (30) days from today.

The compensation amount, together with interest, after deducting any amount already deposited, shall be deposited within one (1) month from the date of receipt of this common judgment by the learned Tribunal.

Upon such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the compensation awarded to her, together with the accrued interest, after deducting any amount already paid.

In the result, and in view of the findings in points Nos.1 to 3, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, any pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.