HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company challenging the impugned order and decree dated 20-11-2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.106 of 2015, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum to the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein)on account of the death of the deceased Darpally Sailoo in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2014 at about 4.30 pm while the deceased Darpally Sailoo was travelling as labourer in Trolley bearing No.AP25AE8624 attached to Tractor bearing No.AP25AE8625 from Hasgul, when the said tractor and trolley reached near Kurthem Gadda in the outskirts of Hasgul village, its driver drove it in rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased fell down from the trolley resulting in grievous crush injuries on head and died on the spot. The police of Bichkunda registered a case in crime No.179 of 2014 under Section 304-A IPC. Stating that the deceased was aged 25 years and was doing agriculture and labour on contract basis and earning Rs.10,000/-

per month and they lost love and affection and financial support of the deceased,the claimants(wife, son, and sister of the deceased) i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant-insurance company denied liability, by stating that the seating capacity of the tractor was only for the driver; the deceased was an unauthorized passenger (i.e., not covered under the insurance policy for passengers); andthat the vehicle may have been used in a way not covered by the policy.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driver and awarded Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation to the claimants. The appellant-insurance company filed this appeal challenging both liability and the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

5. Considered the submissions ofthe learned counsel for the parties andperused the record.

6. On a careful examination of the record, it is evident that insofar as liability and negligence are concerned, the Tribunal accepted credible eyewitness testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and corroborating documents i.e, First Information Report, charge-sheet, inquest, post-mortem examination report to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driver; and even though the appellant-insurance company argued that the deceased was traveling in breach of policy (unauthorized passenger), the Tribunal rightly did not absolve liability because negligence was clearly proved.

7. Coming to the assessment of compensation, since there was no documentary proof of the income of the deceased as claimed by the claimants at Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal reasonably fixed the notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month, taking into consideration the nature of his labour and the absence of wage records. Addition of 40% for future prospects, deduction of one-third for personal expenses, and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads of compensation are all consistent with the principles enunciated in the cases of Smt.Sarla Varma vs Delhi Transport Corporation 1 andNational Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi². Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

This appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

2009(6) SCC 121

(2017) 16 SCC 680

8. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall s