Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ravi Nath Tilhari and Dr. K. Manmadha
Rao, JJ.
National Insurance Company
Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager – Appellant
versus
E. Suseelamma, W/o.
C. Satyanarayana and Ors. – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013
Decided on 4.8.2023
(A) Evidence –– Standards of proof -Motor vehicle cases – Strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in criminal trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident Claim Cases – Standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt – Approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault but, instead should be only to analyze material placed on record by parties to ascertain whether claimant’s version is more likely than not true. [Para 37]
(B) Contributory Negligence – Negligence ordinarily means breach of legal duty to care, but when used in expression ‘contributory negligence’ it does not mean breach of any duty – It only means failure by a person to use reasonable care for safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as “author of his own wrong” – There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any failure on part of Maruti Car driver to take any particular care or that he had breached his duty in any manner – Appellant Insurance Company has failed to discharge its burden to prove contributory negligence on part of deceased driver of Maruti Car – On preponderance of evidence, including evidence of P.W.2, eyewitness, and in absence of any corroboration of evidence of R.W.1, driver of offending lorry vehicle, no fault can be found in finding of Tribunal that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry and there was no contributory negligence on part of deceased driver of Maruti Car. [Paras 40, 41]
(C) Negligence – Contributory vis-à-vis composite – In case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to accident cannot claim compensation for injuries sustained by him in accident to extent of his own negligence, whereas in case of composite negligence, person who has suffered has not contributed to accident but due to outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. [Para 44]
(D) Composite Negligence – Arguments of appellant that there was composite negligence on part of deceased also fails because deceased has suffered not due to outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons but he has suffered only because of accident caused by rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry. [Para 47]
(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – APMV Rules 1989 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 41 – Appeal – Power of Court – Court in exercise of appellate powers can enhance amount of compensation even in absence of appeal or cross-objection by claimants – Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act to High Court, in absence of different procedure having been provided, either under MV Act or APMV Rules 1989, and applicability of Order 41 CPC also not having been excluded, normal rules which apply to appeals before High Court, are applicable – For doing justice and to award just compensation, provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 are to be invoked – There is no legal interdict or prohibition under law, rather mandate of law is to award just compensation – There is also no prejudice being caused to person not a party before Court. [Paras 50, 59, 66]
(F) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166,173 – Compensation – Fatal accident – There are four claimants – Deductions towards personal expenses would be 1/4th and not 1/3rd as determined by Tribunal – Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1 – All four (R1 to R4) would be entitled for compensation under head of loss of consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- each – Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- under head of “Loss of Estate” – Same is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- - Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses which is also enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- - Amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards “loss of love and affection” is maintained – Monthly income is assessed by Tribunal is Rs. 14, 300/- Rs. 5, 681/- is awarded towards future prospects by Tribunal – Multiplier applied is 13 –Total compensation assessed to Rs. 25,37,816/- which is payable along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from date of claim petition till realisation. [Paras 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard Sri N. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and Sri S. V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants, present respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. M.A.C.M.A.No. 945 of 2013 is by the National Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Seshapiran Street, Chittoor. Challenging the judgment/award dated 08.01.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.231 of 2009 filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 which was partly allowed by the I Additional District - Cum - Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor (in short, the Tribunal).
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that V. Jayachandra Naidu, along with his friend Sathyanarayana was proceeding in his Maruti Car bearing Registration No. AP03 K 4752 from Chittoor to Palamaner on 01.08.2009. He was driving the car and when it reached near Buthala Banda cross, a Gas Tanker lorry bearing Registration No. A.P.31 T 9427 belonging to V. Madhavan, the respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P. case dashed against Maruti Car causing death of V. Jayachandra Naidu and Sathyanarayana.
4. The claimants, on account of death of Sathyanarayana, filed M.V.O.P. No.231 of 2011, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only), stating inter alia that the age of the deceased was 46 years on the date of the accident and he was working as Senior Assistant in Primary Health Centre, Penumur and drawing a salary of Rs.18,936/- p.m. Besides, the deceased was also having Ac.10.00 of agricultural land at village Veeramangalam and getting an income of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a. from cultivation.
5. The respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P, V. Madhavan is the owner of the Gas tanker lorry who remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P is the present appellant Insurance Company of the lorry.
6. The respondent No.3, in the M.V.O.P, S. Sruthi Keerthi, is the daughter of the deceased.
7. Smt. V. S. Rani, respondent No.4 in M.V.O.P is the widow of V. Jaychandra Naidu, owner of the Maruti Car who was driving the car and also died in the accident.
8. The respondent No.2, M/s. National Insurance Company Limited filed written statement denying the petition averments including age, avocation and income of the deceased, Sathyanarayana. Plea was taken that the accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the V. Jayachandra Naidu, who was driving the Maruti Car in which deceased Sathyanarayana was travelling. The Insurance Company of the Maruti Car was also necessary party. Liability to pay compensation was denied. The compensation amount as claimed was also stated to be highly excessive and exorbitant.
9. The respondent No.2 filed additional written statement that the Maruti Car was also insured with the same respondent No.2 under private car package policy and no additional premium was collected to cover the risk of inmates of car.
10. The respondent No.3, S. Sruthi Keerthi, (daughter of the deceased) also filed written statement submitting inter alia that she is the only daughter and is also entitled for compensation being class I heir and dependent on the deceased.
11. The respondent No.4 also filed written statement stating that it was only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry the accident was caused. Consequently, there was no liability for payment of compensation on her.
12. The Tribunal framed the following issues:—
“(i) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Gas tanker lorry bearing No.AP31 T 9427 or the driver of the car bearing No. AP03 K 4752?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
13. The claimants examined 1st claimant as P.W.1 and one G. Sahadevan as P.W.2 and also got marked documents as Exs.A1 to A7. Exhibits marked by claiman
Motor Vehicles accident – Compensation – Enhancement - Court in exercise of appellate powers can enhance amount of compensation even in absence of appeal or cross-objection by claimants.
The court affirmed that compensation in motor accident cases must reflect the deceased's potential earnings and the emotional loss suffered by the family, guided by the principles of fairness and rea....
The court ruled that both drivers were negligent, affirming joint liability under composite negligence, and clarified that enhanced compensation beyond the claimed amount is permissible when just com....
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
