IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Nyapathy Vijay, JJ.
National Insurance Company Rep. by its Divisional Manager – Petitioner
Versus
Udayagiri Sumathi And Others W/o.Late Udayagiri Venkataiah and ors. – Respondents
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2308 of 2018
Decided On : 04-10-2024
Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Sections 166, 173 of the M.V. Act - The court interpreted the provisions regarding legal representatives and dependents, affirming that married daughters and major sons can claim compensation, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of legal representation in motor vehicle accident claims.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed for compensation under the M.V. Act after the death of a police officer in a motor vehicle accident caused by negligent driving. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which the insurance company appealed, contesting the dependents' status and the compensation amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the accident was due to negligent driving and confirmed the compensation awarded, stating that the claimants, including a married daughter and major son, were entitled to compensation as legal representatives.
Issues: Whether the married daughter and major son are legal representatives entitled to claim compensation, and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair.
Ratio Decidendi: Legal representatives can claim compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, and the definition of 'legal representative' is broad, allowing for claims from those who may not be direct dependents but have suffered due to the death.
Result: The appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed, and the claimants are granted enhanced compensation of Rs.69,60,187/- with interest.
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance company and Sri P. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 5.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V Act”) was filed by the National Insurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 06.03.2018 in M.V.O.P. No.533 of 2016 (in short, “M.V.O.P”), passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge Kadapa (for short, “the Tribunal”). By the said award, the claim of the claimant-respondents 1 to 5 was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.76,58,364/- with interest thereon @ 9% p.a from the date of the claim petition till date of deposit.
3. The claimants-respondents 1 to 5 filed the aforesaid M.V.O.P No.533 of 2016 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding the compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- for the death of one Udayagiri Venkataiah @ Venkata Rao (deceased) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 12.08.2016 at about 7.00 a.m on N.H.16, Gudavalli Village, opposite to TATA Motors, Gannavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP 37- BA-1449. (The offending vehicle).
Facts:
4. The case of the claimants was that on 09.08.2016 at about 6.45 a.m, while the deceased and some other police men of A.R. Unit, Chittoor District, who were deputed to maintain bandobust for Krishna Pushkaralu at Vijayawada, were waiting by standing for a bus to go to Air Port; at that time one Innova car bearing No.AP 37-BA-1449 came from Vijayawada side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, without blowing horn and dashed the deceased who was standing extremely on left side of the road, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple bleeding injuries all over the body and became unconscious, fell on the road. He was immediately shifted to Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada where he declared as =dead‘. Prior to the accident, the deceased was working as A.R. Head Constable, A.R Unit, Chittoor District and was getting salary of Rs.51,000/- per month and contributing the same for the family.
5. The respondents 6 and 7 herein remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
6. The National Insurance Company-appellant (respondent No.3 in M.V.O.P) filed written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition and inter alia contending that the claimants be put to strict proof of their case in the claim petition. It was denied that the driver of the offending lorry was rash and negligent. The accident occurred only due to the deceased who suddenly crossed the road, got confused, got slipped and fallen on the road. The offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. It was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle should possess valid and effective driving license, otherwise the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify. The amount claimed was high and excessive, without any basis and the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.
7. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?
(3) To what result?
8. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 U. Sumathi, P.W.2 G. Manjunath, Sr. Assistant and P.W.3 S. Raghunath, ARSI, Chittoor were examined and Ex.A.1 certified copy of FIR inCr.No.257 of 2016 of Gannavaram P.S, Ex.A.2 certified copy of inquest report, Ex.A.3 certified copy of postmortem certificate, Ex.A.4 certified copy of MVI report, Ex.A.5 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.6 salary certificate, Ex.A.7 SSC marks list of the deceased and Ex.X.1 authorization letter dated 21.11.2017 and Ex.X.2 salary ce
Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234
Magma National Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.
Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another
N. Jayasree and others vs. Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Company Limited (2022) 14 SCC 712
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and others (2020) 11 SCC 356
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others
Rojalini Nayak and others vs. Ajit Sahoo and others (2021) 11 SCC 780
Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
Legal representatives, including married daughters and major sons, are entitled to claim compensation under the M.V. Act, emphasizing a broad interpretation of dependency and representation.
The court reinforced that just compensation must be determined based on established income, future prospects, and the liability of the insurance company, irrespective of the driver's licensing status....
The judgment emphasizes that income tax deductions must be based on actual tax paid and ex gratia amounts cannot be deducted from compensation unless stipulated by law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider future prospects and deductions for personal expenses while calculating compensation, as per the legal principles established ....
The court reaffirmed that claimants are entitled to just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in determining compensation.
Driver not a necessary party in all motor accident claims under Section 166; non-impleadment does not invalidate claim if owner's vicarious liability is established.
The court clarified that legal representatives under the Motor Vehicles Act include siblings and others, and emphasized the need for proper assessment of income and future prospects in compensation c....
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.