THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.546 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed by the appellants/claimants assailing the Award, dt.06.02.2018, in OP.No.994 of2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge, for trial of SCs/STs(POA) Cases-cum-VII Additional District Judge at Nalgonda, for enhancement.

2. Heard Sri Sakinala Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-Insurance Company.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Poreddy Venkat Reddy, filed a petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road accident that took place on 29.01.2012. On the fateful day, after completion of process duty at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, while the deceased was returning to Yadagirigutta Police Station on his pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP 24 K 1356, when he reached near Kondamadugu Mettu, near Indian Petrol Bunk near Bibinagar Village at about 2.00 a.m., he dashed to a lorry bearing No.AP- 36-XC-4246, which was parked in a negligent manner and sustained several injuries and died on the spot.

5. A case in Crime No.12 of 2012 of Bibinagar Police Station, Nalgonda District, was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and charge sheet was also laid against the driver of the lorry.

6. The claimants contended that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale & healthy and working as Police Constable 2117 in Yadagirigutta Police Station and used to earn Rs.21,749/- per month, and on account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their only breadwinner. The 1^st respondent being the driver-cum-owner and 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

7. The Tribunal after due enquiry and examining the evidence available on record, held that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent-driver and awarded an amount of Rs.15,30,000/- as against the claim of Rs.28,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants submits that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent acts of driver of the lorry as well as the deceased and erroneously fixed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and deducted 25% out of the total compensation.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others¹ and Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi

2017 ACJ 2700

Transport Corporation and another2, and thus, prayed to allow the appeal enhancing the compensation.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appear for respondent-insurance company submitted that fixing of liability on the part of the deceased towards contributory negligence is justifiable, and while supporting the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, contended that the interference of this Court is unwarranted and sought to dismiss the appeal.

12. I have taken note of the respective submissions made on either side and perused the record.

13. As regards the findings of the Tribunal in fixing contributory negligence @ 25% , from a perusal of the Sketch Map of offence panchanama and MVI Report, i.e., Ex.A5 and A7, it is evident that lorry was parked on the road without taking any precautionary measures to avert any danger. Normally at odd hours during night at 2.00 a.m., in the abs