Legal heirs cannot claim compensation for self-inflicted injuries resulting from negligent driving; no master-servant relationship negated claims against the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)), Nizamabad in OP No.142 of 2005, dated 05.04.2007.

2. Appellant is the petitioner. Respondents are the respondents in the O.P.

3.1. Appellant-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization.

3.2. Appellant-petitioner is the wife and respondent No.1 is the son of late Kyatham Chinna Reddy.

3.3. It is stated in the petition that on 15.01.2001 at about 11.45 A.M. Kyatham Chinna Reddy was driving Maruthi Zen car bearing No.AP 25G 3231 belonging to respondent No.1. When the vehicle reached Bandalingapur Shivar near Gandhi Hanuman Temple on National Highway Road No.16, K. Chinna Reddy lost control over the same and dashed the road side stone, sustained grievous head injury and he was shifted to M.J. Hospital, Armoor. While undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Deceased K. Chinna Reddy was aged about 40 years as on the date of accident and he was hale and healthy, earning Rs.10,000/- per month as an agriculturist and driver. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.2 is the insurer which was in force as on the date of accident and prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed for.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.2 filed written statement, denied the contents of the petition. It is further stated that appellant-petitioner has filed petition before Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad vide W.C. No.34 of 2002 and the same was dismissed and the present O.P. is not maintainable. Deceased K. Chinna Reddy was driving the vehicle without having valid driving license and he is neither a third-party nor inmate of the vehicle as a passenger, he was driving the same in a private capacity. Respondent No.2 denied the age and income of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the O.P. 6. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the LMV Maruthi Car Zen bearing No.AP-25-G-3231 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. Appellant is examined as PW.1, got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Respondent No.2 did not lead any oral evidence but got marked Ex.B1-Policy.

8. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under no fault liability holding th at the respondent No.1 to pay the same. The claim against respondent No.2 is dismissed. The Tribunal has apportioned the above said amount and held that the appellant- petitioner is entitled for Rs.40,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum and respondent No.1 is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards his share as legal heir of the deceased.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- instead of awarding Rs.3 Lakhs. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.1 with that of Exs.A1 to A4 and prayed to enhance the compensation. Counsel to substantiate his contention relied on the decision in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. K.M. Poonam and others , 1(2015) 15 SCC