Partly allowed

Duvvuru Lakshmi Prasanna and 3 Others v. Subhashini and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2023MACMA/939/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal challenging compensation award of 5.25 lakhs. Court increased compensation to 6.73 lakhs by adjusting contributory negligence percentage and enhancing damages under conventional heads like loss of consortium and estate.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.6,73,000/- awarded; Respondents directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.1,48,000/- within two months.

Duvvuru Lakshmi Prasanna and 3 Others Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No. 939 of 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Aggrieved by the award dated 15.05.2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore, in M.V.O.P.No.242 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- to the petitioners as against their claim of Rs.14,00,000/-, this instant appeal is preferred by the petitioners for enhancement of the compensation.

¶5

For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

¶6

The claim petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.14,00,000/towards compensation for the death of Duvuru Venkata Subba Reddy, who is husband of 1^st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of 4^th petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.08.2007.

¶7

¶8

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶9

The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

¶10

On 09.08.2007 the deceased was proceeding to his village from

¶11

Nellore on his two-wheeler bearing registration No.AP 26X 4653 and at about 9.00 p.m. when he reached near Brahmadevam Village, he dashed a lorry bearing registration No.AP 27V 4255, which was stationed in darkness without any indication of lights in a highly negligent manner, on its behind, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. The 1^st respondent is owner and the 2^nd respondent is insurer of the stationed lorry, hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

¶12

The 1^st respondent was set ex parte . The 2^nd

¶13

respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and not due to the driver of the stationed lorry, the owner of the motor cycle and its insurance company are proper and necessary parties, the driver of the lorry was

¶14

¶15

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶16

not having valid driving licence at the time of accident, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of the lorry, therefore, the 2^nd respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition.

¶17

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

¶18

following issues for trial:

¶19

Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 27V 4255 by its driver and whether it resulted in the death of Duvuru Venkata Subba Reddy (deceased)?

¶20

Whether the driver of the lorry was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?

¶21

Whether the owner of the Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No.AP 26X 4653 and its insurance company are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings?

¶22

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, against whom and for which amount?

¶23

For what relief?

¶24

During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf

¶25

of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.19 were marked. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent/Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

¶26

¶27

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶28

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence

¶29

on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners with costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment against both the respondents. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claim petitioners filed the instant appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

¶30

Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

¶31

Now, the points for determination are:

¶32

1. Whether the claim petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

¶33

1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶34

POINT Nos.1 and 2 : In order to prove the rash and negligent

¶35

driving of the driver of the offending lorry, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident.

¶36

¶37

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶38

As per the evidence of P.W.2, while he was proceeding on NelloreMuthukur road, he noticed that a lorry bearing registration No.AP 27V 4255 was stationed on the middle of the road without any indication or parking lights and one Venkata Subba Reddy, who was proceeding to his village from Nellore on a two-wheeler, dashed the stationed lorry on its back side and sustained grievous injury and died on the way to hospital. The material on record reveals that P.W.2 was also shown as one of the witnesses in the charge sheet filed by the police. P.W.2 also admitted that the motor cycle was having lights and with the lighting of the motor cycle, the vehicles in front of the motor cycle would be visible, if no vehicle was coming in opposite direction with headlights. Ex.A.1-attested copy of first information report goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the lorry. Ex.A.4-attested copy of charge sheet also goes to show that after completion of investigation, the police laid a charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. Ex.A.2-attested copy of inquest report and Ex.A.3attested copy of post mortem report disclose that the deceased died in a road accident.

¶39

¶40

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶41

The Tribunal in its order held that the petitioners did not choose

¶42

to file certified copy of scene observation report, rough sketch or the photographs obtained at the scene of offence. On a perusal of the contents of Ex.A.1-first information report, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased hit the parked lorry on the road. The Tribunal rightly observed in its order that if the deceased was careful in driving his two-wheeler with headlights on, he could have avoided the accident at the last minute. The Tribunal also held in its order that the deceased had not taken proper care at the time of driving of his two-wheeler, due to that, he dashed the stationed lorry from its back side. The Tribunal, by giving cogent and valid reasons, came to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to the extent of 50% and the petitioners are entitled to only 50% of the total amount of loss of dependency. The material on record reveals that the deceased was a rider of two-wheeler and he himself dashed the stationed lorry, which was parked on the middle of the road without taking any proper precautions and without putting on the parking lights. On considering the overall circumstances of the

¶43

¶44

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶45

case, I am of the considered view that the accident occurred due to 40% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and 60% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry for parking the lorry on the middle of the road without any parking lights.

¶46

The contention of the petitioners is that the deceased was having Acs.15.00 of land, he converted the said extent of land into aqua culture, he was also doing sub-contracts and thereby he used to earn Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. On considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the earnings of the deceased per annum is Rs.1,00,000/-. After deducting 1/3^rd from out of the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the total contribution to the family members of the deceased was arrived at Rs.66,667/- (Rs.1,00,000/- - Rs.33,333/-) which was rounded off to Rs.67,000/-. As per Exs.A.2 and A.3, the deceased was aged about 40 years. The Tribunal, by applying the multiplier ‘15’ applicable to the age group of the deceased as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport

¶47

¶48

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶49

Corporation¹ , arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.10,05,000/(Rs.67,000/- x multiplier ‘15’). I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in arriving at the loss of dependency at Rs.10,05,000/-.

¶50

As stated supra, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to the extent of 40%. Therefore, 40% amount has to be deducted from out of total compensation of Rs.10,05,000/-, and if it is deducted, the remaining loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,03,000/-.

¶51

Further, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,500/under conventional heads i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.2,500/towards funeral expenses of the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi² , the maximum amount to be awarded under conventional heads is Rs.70,000/- only. In view of the same, the

¶52

1 2009 (4) SCJ 91

¶53

2 2017 (16) SCC 680

¶54

¶55

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶56

amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads are very low. Therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1^st petitioner, and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses of the deceased.

¶57

In total, a sum of Rs.6,73,000/- is awarded towards compensation to the petitioners.

¶58

It is not in dispute that the offending lorry of the 1^st respondent was insured with the 2^nd respondent/Insurance company under Ex.B.1-policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of accident and the driver of the offending lorry was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioners.

¶59

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.6,73,000/-. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the

¶60

¶61

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶62

enhanced compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, all the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon equally. No order as to costs.

¶63

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶64

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

¶65

8^th September, 2023 cbs

¶66

¶67

VGKR,J MACMA No.939 of 2014

¶68

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶69

M.A.C.M.A.No. 939 of 2014

¶70

8^th September, 2023

¶71

cbs

Duvvuru Lakshmi Prasanna and 3 Others v. Subhashini and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duvvuru Lakshmi Prasanna and 3 Others v. Subhashini and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Aluri Naga Lakshmi and 6 Others

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Singareddy Pulla Reddy

S.Balakka and 3 Others Vs D.Raju and Another

The Royal Sundaram Alliance insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Katterepalli Venkata Subba Reddy

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs B Thulasi and 4 Others

P Lakshmi Devi and 3 Others Vs Mr Jageshwar and Another