Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
D. Aruna and Another – Appellants
Versus
G. Hari Kishore Reddy and Others – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A. No. 154 of 2013
Decided On : 31-10-2022
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - DEPENDANTS - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 166 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION - CONVENTIONAL HEADS - LOSS OF DEPENDENCY - LOSS OF ESTATE - FUNERAL EXPENSES - LOSS OF SPOUSAL CONSORTIUM - LOSS OF PARENTAL CONSORTIUM - INTEREST RATE.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Muniswami Reddy, was killed in a motor vehicle accident on 11.02.2007. The claimants, his wife and son, filed a claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 16,67,250/- with interest @ 6% per annum. The claimants appealed, seeking enhancement of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal's finding regarding the entitlement of respondents 3 to 6 (the deceased's parents and widow sisters) as dependents on the deceased's earnings was correct. The court also held that the Tribunal's calculation of the annual income of the deceased and the multiplier applicable for his age group was correct. However, the court found that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 6% per annum and that a rate of 7.5% per annum was more appropriate.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in granting compensation to the deceased's parents and widow sisters as dependents. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in calculating the annual income of the deceased and the multiplier applicable for his age group. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 6% per annum.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the term 'legal representative' in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be construed liberally and that all persons dependent on the deceased's earnings are entitled to compensation. 2. The court held that the Tribunal's calculation of the annual income of the deceased and the multiplier applicable for his age group was correct. 3. The court held that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 6% per annum and that a rate of 7.5% per annum was more appropriate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and re-fixed the compensation amount at Rs. 24,04,750/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The court directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount within a month from the receipt of a copy of the order.
JUDGMENT :
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by an order dated 30.04.2011 in MVOP No. 195 of 2007, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP.
3. The claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the death of D. Muniswami @ Muniswami Reddy (for short ‘the deceased’) who is the husband of 1st claimant and the father of 2nd claimant, in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.02.2007.
4. The claimant's case is that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 34 years as of the date of the accident. He studied M.Com. And Diploma in Marketing from S.V. University and worked as Marketing Executive in Kurnool Cylinders Private Limited Unit-II, Hyderabad drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Apart from that, the deceased was running a transport agency in the name and style of “S.V.R. Transport” and was earning Rs. 2,00,000/- from the said business. On 11.02.2007 at about 3.30 P.M. the deceased was a pillion rider, and one Prasad Reddy was a rider of Splendor motor cycle bearing No. AP-03-L-0125 were coming on the Nellore-Chennai National Highway road when they reached near Pandluru Agricultural Marketing check post; at that time, the Scorpio bearing No. AP-26-L-5009, coming from the Chennai side, was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, lost control of the vehicle and dashed against the deceased's motorcycle. Due to this, the rider of said motorcycle died on the spot. The pillion rider Muniswamy died on the way to the hospital after some time on the same day.
5. The first respondent filed a counter-denying the material allegations made in the claim petition and further submitted that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Scorpio. The accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the splendour motorcycle.
6. The second respondent filed a counter and submitted that the first respondent had not followed the rules and regulations under Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The first respondent's driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The alleged accident is said to have occurred at Pendalur cross-road. The claimants failed to add the owner of the motorcycle.
7. Respondents 3 to 6 filed a counter by submitting that after the death of the deceased in the accident, none is there to look after their welfare, and they are entitled to the compensation amount.
8. The 7th respondent remained ex-parte.
9. The 8th respondent filed a counter submitting that the driver of the first respondent drove the Scorpio in a rash and negligent manner without proper care and caution and dashed against the motor cycle of the 7th respondent. Police also registered a case against the driver of the first respondent and filed a charge-sheet.
10. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined, and marked Exs.A.1 to A.21. On behalf of the respondents, RWs. 1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 16,67,250/- with interest @ 6% per annum.
11. Heard the argument of learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal below committed a grave error in granting compensation to respondents 5 and 6, the widow sisters of the deceased. As per Section 6(8) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the mother a
The term 'legal representative' in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be construed liberally and that all persons dependent on the deceased's earnings are entitled to compensation.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not just and reasonable, as it was based on an erroneous finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal also erred in deduct....
The family pension received by the wife of the deceased in a road traffic accident is not a "pecuniary advantage" and is not liable for deduction while determining the compensation under the provisio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
