A claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be treated as one under Section 166 if negligence is established, allowing for compensation based on fault liability rather than structured formula.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the decree and the award dated 20.05.2009 in M.V.O.P. No. 514 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Guntur.

Though cross objections were filed, they were not pressed.

The respondents Nos.1 to 5 / the claimants, filed the petition M.V.O.P. No. 514 of 2008 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The respondent No.6 is the respondent No.1 and the appellant is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal.

The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act due to the death of Murali Krishna resulting from the injuries sustained by him on 15.03.2008 at about 5.30 A.M. while he, along with others, was taking a morning walk on the national high way No.5 and hit by a lorry bearing No. AP 04V 9279 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry. The police registered a case against the driver of the lorry and filed a charge sheet against him for offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. The claimant No.1 is the wife, the claimants Nos. 2 and 3 are the children, and the claimants Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased.

The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

The respondent No.2 resisted the claim by filing a written statement, while denying the case pleaded by the claimant, further stating that the lorry was transferred to Varikuri Srinivas Reddy who was not made a party to the petition.

On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs. A1 to A5 and Exs. X1 to X3.

P.W.1: Devisetti Sri Lakshmi

P.W.2: Atchukola Brahma Swamy @ Brahmaswamulu

P.W.3: B. Babu Rao

Ex. A1 : Certified copy of F.I.R.

Ex. A2 : Certified copy of inquest report.

Ex. A3 : Certified copy of charge sheet.

Ex. A4 : Certified copy of P.M. report

Ex. A5 : Certified copy of M.V.I. Report.

Ex. X1 : Appointment letter.

Ex. X2 : Salary certificate.

Ex. X3 : Copy of service record.

On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 G. Chandra Sekhar was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

Ex. B1 : Policy.

The Tribunal held that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The deceased was aged about 36 years. The claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. To prove the same, they examined P.W.3, Personnel Officer in Maddi Lakshmaiah and Group of Companies, Chilakaluripet and got marked Exs. X1 to X3 through him. After examining the evidence, the Tribunal has taken monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 4,965/-, after deducting amount of professional tax of Rs. 60/- and calculated annual salary of Rs. 59,580/-, out of which further deducted 1/3 rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, Rs. 39,720/- was taken as his annual contribution to the family and multiplied the same by the multiplier ‘13’ applicable to the person of age group of ‘36’ years. That apart, the Tribunal awarded the claimant No.1 Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium and to all the claimants together Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation charges of the dead body to the house and funeral expenses. Thus, in total, an amount of Rs. 5,56,000/- was awarded as compensation, with interest @ 7% p.a. payable from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal awarded costs of the petition proportionate to the amount of compensation granted.

Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was preferred mainly contending that the Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, though the Tribunal decided that the annual income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/- and that the Tribunal erred in believing the documentary evidence under Exs. X.1 and X.3 and the oral evidence of P.W.3, despite the