IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.
Atukuri Leelavathi and Others – Petitioners
Versus
M/s Bharath Motor Parcel Service and Others – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.1744 of 2006
Decided On : 22-06-2023
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 173 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and referred to various legal provisions including Section 304-A IPC, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, and National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions in determining the compensation amount.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was killed in a road traffic accident, and the claimants filed for compensation. The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. The main issue was the assessment of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased's income was incorrectly assessed by the Tribunal and applied the principles from relevant judgments to re-calculate the compensation. The court concluded that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not just and reasonable and enhanced it from Rs.1,50,000 to Rs.5,96,000.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable, leading to the assessment of the deceased's income and the re-calculation of the compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi to determine the appropriate compensation amount based on the deceased's income and other factors.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.1,50,000 to Rs.5,96,000, and directed the respondents to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 04.05.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for short “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No.262 of 2003 granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate costs and with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount, against respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.02.2003 at about 7.30 p.m., when Venkata Raghava Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) along with one Pitchaiah Gupta was standing near Lakshmi Talkies road margin, Gurazala, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 5U 5950 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased-Raghava Rao. The lorry ran over the deceased due to which, he died on the spot. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the said accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry and based on the complaint lodged by the said A.Pitchaiah Gupta, a case in Crime No.8 of 2003 was registered by the Station House Officer, Gurazala Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending lorry. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted to the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala against the accused-driver for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
(ii) The deceased was unmarried and was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and he used to earn Rs.72,000/- per annum as one of the partners of M/s. Sambasiva Seeds Centre at Gurazala. The parents of the deceased i.e., 1st and 2nd claimants and unmarried sisters i.e., 3rd and 4th claimants filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- before the Tribunal on account of his death in the road traffic accident.
(iii) T.Visweswara Rao, who was the Managing Partner of the 1st respondent firm, died. The 3rd respondent was impleaded as owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 5U 5950 and was remained ex parte.
(iv) The 2nd respondent/Insurer filed a written statement contending inter alia and denying all the averments made in the petition including the manner of the accident, age and income of the deceased. It is further averred that the petitioners are put to strict proof that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 5U 5950 was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Either the first respondent or the third respondent, in collusion with the petitioners/claimants, did not inform about the accident, with a view to cause loss to this respondent. It is further averred that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and the lorry bearing No.AP 5 U 5950 was not insured with the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company at the time of the accident. It is further averred that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. This respondent, therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.
(v) Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
(vi) In order to establish the claim of the petitioners, at the time of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were got marked. No oral evidence was adduced and no documents w
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others
Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others
National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi
Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from relevant judgments to determine just and reasonable compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.
Court emphasized 'just compensation' principles, adjusting compensation for loss of dependency and conventional heads, thereby enhancing the award significantly to reflect adequate and fair remunerat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-assessment of notional income and enhancement of compensation under various heads to ensure just and reasonable compensation for the claiman....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a driver holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle can drive a transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement, making the Insu....
The court established that contributory negligence must be proven, and compensation should be just and adequate, reflecting the actual loss suffered by the claimants.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.