Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
Puchakayala Jhansi And Others – Appellant
Versus
Sivaraju Kasinadharao S/o. Kasinadharao And Others - Respondents
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.422 of 2014
Decided on : 25-01-2024
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 166 - 337, 338, 304-A - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298, and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Constitutional Bench Judgment) to determine the just compensation for the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of P.Veeranna in a motor vehicle accident. The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants challenged the award and decree of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation entitled by the claimants as per law.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the claimants and modified the award and decree, holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,62,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.2,43,500/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the learned Tribunal failed to award just compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others to determine the just compensation for the claimants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the award and decree passed by the learned Tribunal were modified, holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,62,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.2,43,500/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellants/claimants. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri N.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for 3rd respondent/Insurance Company and Sri G.Srinivasu, learned counsel for the 5th respondent/Insurance Company.
2. The appeal is directed by the claimants against the award and decree dated 20.09.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.65/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl.District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.
4. The appellants/claimants filed the claim petition U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of P.Veeranna (hereinafter referred as deceased) in motor vehicle accident occurred on 11.11.2008.
5. The case of the claimants is that on 11.11.2008 the deceased and others were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 37X 7322 to go to Kaikaram village for coolie works; the auto reached a place near police station at Tadepalligudem on Eluru-Tadepalligudem road at about 02.30 p.m.; the offending vehicle i.e., Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 29M 2219 was coming from Eluru and proceeding towards Tadepalligudem came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto; as a result, the auto turned turtle; the deceased and other passengers travelling in the auto sustained injuries; they were shifted to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem; the deceased succumbed to injuries in the hospital; police registered a case in Cr.No.174/2008 for the offence punishable U/secs.337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code; the claimants are the dependants on the deceased; hence, they filed claim petition for compensation for the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident.
The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent is the owner-cum-insured of the offending vehicle. The 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The 4th respondent is the driver-cum-owner of auto and the 5th respondent is the insurer of the auto.
6. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.
7. The 3rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed written statement, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; age and avocation of the deceased; liability to pay compensation; and contended that the driver of the auto permitted many passengers, then the seating capacity; he failed to control the auto; hence, the auto turned turtle; and the passengers travelling in the auto sustained injuries.
8. The 5th respondent filed written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition, contended that the 4th respondent has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The 4th respondent is an unnecessary party impleaded to the petition. The 5th respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
9. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the claimed amount as prayed for? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
10. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws-1 and 2 and three documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-3 respectively. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents/Insurance Company. Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy was marked by consent.
11. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. It is an admitted fact that none of the respondents challenged the said finding of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of contributory negligence and the determination of just compensation based on legal principles and judgments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Act should account for loss of dependency, future prospects, consortium, estate, and funeral....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the application of legal precedents to determine loss of dependency an....
Compensation for wrongful death must consider future prospects and appropriate deductions based on the number of dependents.
The court emphasized the necessity of awarding just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering future prospects and adjusting interest rates appropriately.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'pay and recovery' in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants first and....
Compensation determination must reflect actual earnings and dependents' needs, ensuring fair and just assessments under the MV Act.
The court emphasized the principle of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including considerations for future prospects and conventional heads.
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
