Back
2013 Supreme(AP) 1235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
Guntur District Milks Producers Mutually - Appellant
Versus
Billa Kalyani - Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 1437, 1438 of 2004 and M.A.C.M.A. No. 1638 of 2008
Decided On : 04-01-2013
For the Appellant :Mr. V.V. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Parameswara Rao, Mr. N. Subba Rao and Mr. Naresh Byrapaneni, Advocates
Headnote:
Penal Code – Section 304A – Accident – Claims –Deceased were proceeding in a tanker – When driver of said tanker drove same in a rash and negligent manner without hearing caution and request made by inmates of said tanker and drove it through said stream – It is stated that at that time vagu was over flowing due to cyclone floods and due to pressure of water, the tanker was thrown away by the water flow – Three persons died and a case in Cr. was registered under 304-A IPC against driver of tanker – Said claim petitions were contested by the owner of the vehicle and insurer of the said vehicle – CMA are filed against the judgments and decrees passed in MVOP on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge – Held, Claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of dependency, estate etc., for death – Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till date of realization, and first respondent-owner of vehicle was directed to pay said amount – Counsel for appellant seeks reduction of the amount, in view of evidence available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case – Deceased was working as an agricultural cooli and was getting Rs. 75/- per day – Tribunal while taking earnings at Rs. 1200/- per month, age of deceased as 45 years deducted rd towards personal and living expenses and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 9,600/- per years – Applying suitable multiplier, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,800/- as compensation – Tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- toward loss of estate; Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner; and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, totaling to Rs. 1,46,800/- which in my view is just and reasonable – No merits in all the appeals – Appeal Dismissed (Paras 23, 24)
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
1. With the consent of all counsel, the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. CMA Nos.1437/2004, 1438/2004 and MACMA No. 1638/2008 are filed against the judgments and decrees dated 22-10-2003 passed in MVOP Nos.966/1998, 922/1998 and 973/98 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur.
3. The facts which led to the filing of these appeals are as under:
On 28-9-1998 at about 11 AM, the deceased Kambampati Chinnaiah @ Chinna (MVOP No.973/98), Guntur David Anand (MVOP No.966/1998) and Miriyala Seshagiri Rao (MVOP No.922/1998) were proceeding towards Narasaraopet side in a tanker bearing No. ADF 8725 on paying fare amount. When the said tanker reached Nerella vagu, the driver of the said tanker drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without hearing the caution and request made by the inmates of the said tanker and drove it through the said stream. It is stated that at that time vagu was over flowing due to cyclone floods and due to pressure of water, the tanker was thrown away by the water flow. Because of the said accident, three persons died and a case in Cr.No.114/1998 was registered under 304-A IPC against the driver of the tanker. The said claim petitions were contested by the owner of the vehicle and insurer of the said vehicle.
4. The owner of the vehicle, Guntur District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-operative Union Ltd., represented by its General Manager, Vadlamudi, Guntur District in their counter stated that they are maintaining a number of tankers to procure raw milk from several villages and supply them to consumers after processing them at Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi of Guntur District. It is stated that they have their own rules and regulations dealing with the drivers and said vehicles were registered as goods vehicles with proper permits from the Registering Authority, RTA, Guntur. It is contended that there was no place for any outsiders to get into the vehicle and that they neither authorised nor consented their drivers to carry any outsider in the milk tanker. Several instructions and circulars were issued to the drivers of the vehicles not to allow strangers to board their vehicles. It is stated that since the driver of the vehicle has violated the rules and regulations issued by them, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants since it was the driver who committed breach of trust and responsible for the death of the deceased. They further denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further stated that the deceased themselves were responsible for the death of the deceased as they boarded the goods vehicle when there were floods at the cause way of Nerelavagu.
5. Applications were filed by the first respondent to implead the driver of the offending tanker as third respondent and the same were allowed on 11-4-2000.
6. The first respondent .ie., the owner of the vehicle filed additional counter stating that the driver alone was responsible for the accident as he acted contrary to the rules framed and that they have imposed a punishment of lowering the pay and also took steps to recover an amount of Rs. 74900/- towards damages caused to the milk tanker.
7. The second respondent-insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petitions and also averments made by the first respondent in their counter. According to them, the deceased in all the cases were unauthorized passengers traveling in the said vehicle and as such they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
8. Basing on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues in all the MVOPs.
(1). Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the milk van bearing No. ADF 8725?
(2). Whether the petitioner are entitled to compensation and if so what amount?
(3). To what relief?
9. Though parties in all the three OPs are different
