IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Nyapathy Vijay, JJ.
The Vice Chairman And Managing Director & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Jagabathuni Sree Vani, w/o Late Jagabathuni Kota and ors. – Respondents
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1376 OF 2017
Decided On : 04-10-2024
Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 166, 173 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding compensation for death in motor accidents, emphasizing the need for fair deductions for personal expenses and the application of conventional heads in determining just compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants, legal representatives of the deceased, sought compensation for his death in a motor accident involving an APSRTC bus. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which APSRTC challenged, claiming the award was excessive and improperly calculated.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence on the part of the bus driver and confirmed the compensation amount, adjusting deductions for personal expenses and enhancing amounts under conventional heads.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and fair, and whether the interest rate was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied established principles from previous judgments regarding deductions for personal expenses and the calculation of compensation under conventional heads, affirming the need for just compensation.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 77,63,293 with interest at 9% per annum.
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned standing counsel for the appellants-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short ‘APSRTC’) and Sri K. Yaswanth, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘the Act’) is by APSRTC challenging the judgment and award dated 28.08.2015, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District at Gajuwaka (in short ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1115 of 2011.
3. The 1st respondent is the widow, 2nd and 3rd respondents are the minor daughters, who during the pendency of the claim petition, attained majority, the 4th respondent is the father of the deceased, the 5th respondent in claim petition was the mother of the deceased and died pending MVOP No.1115 of 2011 intestate and 6th respondent was added being legal representative of the 5th respondent.
4. Respondents No.1 to 6, the legal representatives of the deceased- Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu (in short ‘deceased’), filed M.V.O.P.No.1115 of 2011 under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor accident, dated 24.04.2011 at about 3.20 p.m. while proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP33-A6117 to attend his shift duty at Steel Plant Visakhapatnam, when the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-11Z-6163, driven by its driver, the 7th respondent herein, in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased coming from opposite direction, dragged him to a distance of 20 feet, in which Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu died, due to the injuries sustained. The deceased was working as foreman with Employee ID No.108845 in E.M.D.Gas Safety Department in Visakha Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and drawing salary of Rs.37,854.90 ps per month. He was aged about 46 years.
5. The 2nd respondent -APSRTC, filed written statement denying the material averments of the claim petition. It was stated that the driver of the bus was driving the bus slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. The deceased came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the right side of the bus. It was pleaded that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver. The compensation claimed was said to be excessive and the claimants were asked to be put to strict proof.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
7. On behalf of the claimants, PWs 1, 3 and 4, viz., PW1-J. Sreevani, PW3-P. Nageswara Rao and PW.4 – A. Chalapathi Kumar were examined. The evidence of PW 2-D. Narasinga Rao was eschewed and Exs.A1 to A12 viz., Ex.A1-Certified copy of First Information Report, Ex.A2-Certified copy of Complaint given by first petitioner, Ex.A3-Certified copy of Postmortem Report, Ex.A4-Certified copy of driving licence, Ex.A5-Certified copy of RCB Register, Ex.A6-Certified copy of Motor Vehicles Inquest Report, Ex.A7-Certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A8-Office copy of legal notice, Ex.A9-Acknowledgment Due, Ex.A10-Certified copy of ration card, Ex.A11-Original last pay slip of the deceased for the month of April 2015 and Ex.A12-Identity card of deceased/Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu were marked.
8. On behalf of APSRTC, the driver of the bus-I. Naga Raju was examined as RW 1. No documents were marked.
9. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, returned a finding that the accident had taken place due to
Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
Magma National Insurance Company Limited vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.
Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh (2015) 1 SCC 539
The court established that deductions for personal expenses must consider the number of dependents, and conventional heads should be enhanced based on established precedents.
Compensation for wrongful death must consider future prospects and appropriate deductions based on the number of dependents.
Compensation for motor vehicle accidents must reflect just and equitable principles, recognizing future earnings potential, with interest rates aligned to judicial precedents.
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 court confirmed that legal representatives, including married sons, have the right to claim compensation for the death of a family member in a motor vehicle accident.
The court upheld the necessity to award just compensation in motor accident claims, enhancing the awarded amount based on proven negligence and proper calculations of future prospects and dependency ....
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.