Dismissed

National Insurance Company Limited v. Bandaru Satyavathi

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Oct 2022MACMA/2182/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower Tribunal's award of Rs.4,00,000 to the deceased's family. The Court upheld the finding of negligence based on police reports and confirmed the compensation heads including loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the proceedings in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were confirmed.

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Bandaru… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶2

MACMA.No.2182 OF 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT :

¶4

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2007 in MVOP.No.797 of 2005 passed by Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – IX Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court) Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Tribunal') the 2^nd respondent National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam preferred this appeal questioning the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶5

2. For convenience's sake, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in MVOP.No.797 of 2005.

¶6

3. The claim made by the petitioners under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles At, 1988 claiming compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and costs for the death of Bandaru Rajesh (hereinafter be referred to as deceased) in a motor accident that occurred on 05.12.2004 while he was returning on his Moped bearing No.AP328731 to Anakapalli on the way at about 05.30 AM, a lorry bearing No.ORK3033, driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the Moped, which was coming in the opposite direction. The deceased fell on the ground, received injuries and died while being shifted to the hospital.

¶7

4. The 1^st respondent, the owner of the lorry, remained exparte, and the 2^nd respondent filed counter by contending that the petitioners put strict proof of all the averments in the petition.

¶8

5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. Before

¶9

¶10

MACMA.No.2182 OF 2013

¶11

the Tribunal, on behalf of petitioners, examined PWs.1 to3, and Exs.A1 to A7, Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent, policy copy marked, the 2nd respondent let in no oral evidence.

¶12

6. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver of the 1^st respondent. It granted a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

¶13

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the record.

¶14

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal gave a wrong finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 4^th respondent (in appeal), and Tribunal wrongly calculated the amounts under various heads.

¶15

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the learned Tribunal.

¶16

10. Now points for determination are whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 1^st respondent's driver and whether the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶17

11. To prove the accident, the petitioners got examined PWs.1 and 2. The 1^st petitioner got examined asPW.1; the 2^nd petitioner is her husband, and the 3^rd petitioner is their daughter. A reading of the

¶18

¶19

MACMA.No.2182 OF 2013

¶20

evidence of PW.1 shows that she has not witnessed the occurrence in question. To prove the accident's manner, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW.2 P.Sriniasa Rao. He supported the case of petitioners. He deposed that while standing outside his hotel on 05.12.2004 at about 05.30 or 06.00 AM, he observed the accident. A Lorry from Anakapalli's side at high speed dashed against the person coming in TVS XL Moped and said the accident occurred 50 feet from his hotel. In the cross-examination of PW.2, nothing elicited to discredit his evidence. The petitioners relied on Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR, Ex.A2 attested copy of postmortem report, Ex.A3 attested copy of VMI report, Ex.A4 attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A5 attested copy of charge sheet.

¶21

12. The driver of the offending vehicle is the best person to speak about the manner of an accident. Respondents 1 and 2 have not taken steps to prove the manner of the accident by summoning the 1^st respondent driver and establishing that he did not drive the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident, as contended by the petitioners.

¶22

13. A reading of Ex.A1 FIR coupled with an Ex.A5 certified copy of the charge sheet shows that the offending vehicle's driver drove it rashly and negligent and caused the accident.

¶23

14. The respondents placed no evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet were incorrect. In a decision reported between K.Rajani and others, V. M.Satyanarayana Goud and others¹ , the Hon’ble High Court is pleased to observe that: " when the insurance company came to know that the police investigation is

¶24

1 2015 ACJ 797

¶25

¶26

MACMA.No.2182 OF 2013

¶27

false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false". In the case of Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation² , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: "It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been applied".

¶28

15. Nothing on record suggests that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the driver of the 1^st respondent without conducting a proper investigation. It is difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case.

¶29

16. In a proceeding under the M.V.Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. The document having some probative value, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, can be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of probable versions. The preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for concluding rashness and negligence, as well as the accident's mode and manner. As such, it is by now well settled that even FIR or Police Papers, when made part of a claim petition, can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of happening of the accident.

¶30

2 2009 ACJ 1725 (SC)

¶31

¶32

MACMA.No.2182 OF 2013

¶33

17. The reading of the documents placed before the Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. When the appellant contends that the accident occurred differently, it is to place necessary evidence before the Tribunal based on which the Tribunal expected to give its conclusion. The Tribunal has accepted the claimant's case regarding the accident and also received the observations made by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet making the auto driver responsible for the accident. As observed, the charge sheet contents also support the claimant's case regarding the manner of the accident.

¶34

18. Upon careful reading of the material on record, this court is of the view that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle holds good.

¶35

19. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, it has considered the age of the deceased's mother, i.e., 50 years. According to the evidence of PW.1, the age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of the accident. The postmortem report showed the age of the deceased to be 24 years. Given the same, this court is inclined to consider the age of the deceased as 24 years as of the date of the accident, as it is settled law that for application of the multiplier, the age of the deceased bachelor shall be taken but not the age of dependants of deceased. In this regard, a reference can be made to a decision reported between N.Surendra Rao and others v. D.Swamy³ . The petitioners claim that the deceased was dealing with the business.

¶36

3 2014(1) ALT 512 (DB)

¶37

¶38

MACMA.No.2182 OF 2013

¶39

The Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/- as the minimum notional income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal has deducted onethird (1/3^rd ) of the said amount towards the personal expenditure of the deceased had he been alive. As per the decision reported between Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Corporation and another⁴ , it is observed that where the deceased was a bachelor, and the claimants are the parents, normally 50% of the earnings of the deceased is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. As per the said judgment, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 21 to 25 is '18'. Therefore, the notional yearly income that would be spent by the deceased to maintain the family had he alive is Rs.18,000/- because of the sudden death of their grown-up son, the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled Rs.18,000/- X 18 = Rs.3,24,000/-. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-; this court is of the view that by following the judgment on Pranay Sethi, this court is of view that an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.43,000/- can be awarded towards filial consortium.

¶40

20. Thus appellants are entitled to compensation as under

¶41

i. Towards loss of dependency : Rs.3	,24,000/-
ii. Loss of estate : Rs.	16,500/-
iii. Funeral expenses : Rs.	16,500/-
iv. Filial consortium : Rs.	43,000-
Total : Rs.4	,00,000/-

¶42

21. As the Tribunal awarded the interest amount at 7.5% per annum on the amount, this court is of the view that it is just and reasonable.

¶43

4 2019 ACJ 1298

¶44

¶45

MACMA.No.2182 OF 2013

¶46

22. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal, nor do I see any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal, devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed without costs and the order dt.13.02.2007 passed by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.797 of 2005 is hereby confirmed.

¶47

23. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, are pending shall stand closed.

¶48

__________________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶49

Date :19.10.2022.

¶50

BV/KGM

¶51

¶52

MACMA.No.2182 OF 2013

¶53