Dismissed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Damarala Prasanna Lakshmi & 6 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Nov 2024MACMA/2447/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an Accident Tribunal order, the High Court found no error in the finding of negligence on the part of the auto driver or the calculation of just compensation, upholding the award of Rs.5,43,000/- to the deceased's dependents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's order dated 03.03.2016 awarding Rs.5,43,000/- with interest and costs to the claimants.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Damarala… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.2447 of 2016

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.03.2016 of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟) in M.V.O.P.No.1607 of 2012.

¶5

The appellant is the insurer of the auto rickshaw (trolley) bearing No.AP 07 TA 6923(hereinafter referred as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the wife, children and mother of one Damarla Ramakanth @ Lakshmi Kanth (hereinafter called as „the deceased‟). The respondent Nos.5 and 7 are the owner and driver of the said crime vehicle. The respondent No.6 is the policy holder.

¶6

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

¶7

The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

¶8

i) On 08.09.2012 at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle along with one pillion rider from Atchempet to Krosuru and when they reached

¶9

SV, J

¶10

MACMA No.2447 of 2016 Date 12.11.2024

¶11

Page 2

¶12

near Venkateswara Weigh bridge, Atchempet, Guntur District, the rider of the crime auto rickshaw (trolley) driven the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the said motor cycle from opposite direction. As a result, the deceased and the pillion rider fell down and the deceased who sustained fatal injuries was immediately shifted to Dr.Chandra Sekhara Rao Nursing Home at Sattenapalli, where he was given first aid and referred to Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur, when the doctors are not available, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital at Tadepalli, Guntur and treated up to 10.09.2012 in the intensive care unit and then as the doctors advised that there was no hope of survival, then he was shifted again to Dr.Chandra Sekhara Rao Nursing Home at Sattenapalli and on 12.09.2012, the deceased died while undergoing treatment.

¶13

ii) The deceased was working as clerk in Sita Rama Swamy Rice Mill, Atchempet and getting salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and contributing the same for the family. Being dependents, the petitioners claimed

¶14

SV, J

¶15

MACMA No.2447 of 2016 Date 12.11.2024

¶16

Page 3

¶17

compensation of Rs.5,43,000/- payable jointly and severally by R1 to R4.

¶18

The respondent No.2/Insurer of the crime vehicle filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The deceased was not having valid driving licence and has no experience to drive the vehicle; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶19

The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Trolley Auto bearing No.AP 07 TA 6923?

¶20

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from whom? and

¶21

To what relief?”

¶22

During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, the 1^st petitioner who is the wife of the deceased is examined as PW.1, eyewitness to the incident was examined as P.W-2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were

¶23

SV, J

¶24

MACMA No.2447 of 2016 Date 12.11.2024

¶25

Page 4

¶26

marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined

¶27

and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

¶28

On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the crime Trolley Auto by its rider, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,43,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 4, for the death of the deceased in the accident and also directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the said compensation amount within three months.

¶29

It is against the said order; this appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime vehicle.

¶30

Heard Sri G.Hara Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer appeared through V.C. and Sri R. Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants. 11. Sri G.Hara Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence properly and erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw trolley driver (R-5 in the appeal). The other contention of the appellant is that though no evidence is produced by the claimants, the tribunal has

¶31

SV, J

¶32

MACMA No.2447 of 2016 Date 12.11.2024

¶33

Page 5

¶34

erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and awarded excessive compensation to the claimants.

¶35

Sri R. Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants submits that the tribunal after considering the material placed on record has rightly concluded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the trolley auto. He further submits that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident and working as a Clerk in Sita Rama Swamy Rice Mill, Atchempet and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants who are depending on the deceased filed the claim application for awarding compensation U/s.166 of M.V.Act and the tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation.

¶36

In the light of above rival contentions, the following points

¶37

arise for determination:

¶38

Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just compensation? If not? To what amount?

¶39

14. POINT:

¶40

On this point, the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, R.W-1, Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto rickshaw trolley bearing

¶41

SV, J

¶42

MACMA No.2447 of 2016 Date 12.11.2024

¶43

Page 6

¶44

No.AP 07 TA 6923. This Court is of the opinion that the said finding does not warrant interference of this Court.

¶45

Coming to the income of the petitioner, since the petitioner

¶46

failed to prove the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month with any documentary proof, the tribunal by placing reliance on the decisions reported by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, wherein it was held that when the parties failed to prove the exact income of the deceased, the income of the deceased has to be assessed notionally.

¶47

Admittedly, the tribunal taking into the fact that the accident was occurred on 08.09.2012 and in the year 2012, a Clerk in a private company can draw Rs.6,000/- per month, fixed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month after excluding 1/3^rd of the income towards personal expenses of deceased, which is reasonable.

¶48

Upon such monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/the Tribunal by following the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation¹ ,

¶49

and after decisions has rightly applied multiplier „16‟ since the

¶50

1 2009 ACJ 1298

¶51

SV, J

¶52

MACMA No.2447 of 2016 Date 12.11.2024

¶53

Page 7

¶54

deceased is between age group 35 to 40 years and has rightly awarded dependency at Rs.4,08,000/-.

¶55

The learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards medical and funeral expenses, in total the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,43,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @7.5% per annum towards just compensation to the claimants, which is justifiable.

¶56

In the light of foregoing discussion, this Court of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference and holds good. Accordingly, the point is answered.

¶57

In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order and decree, dated 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.1607/2012 on the file of Family Courtcum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶59

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

¶60

JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶61

Date:12.11.2024 Pmk

¶62

SV, J

¶63

MACMA No.2447 of 2016 Date 12.11.2024

¶64

Page 8

¶65

179

¶66

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶67

M.A.C.M.A.No.2447 of 2016

¶68

DATE: 12.11.2024

¶69

Pmk

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Damarala Prasanna Lakshmi & 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Damarala Prasanna Lakshmi & 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad Vs Rama Bhushanam, Nawabpet, Nellore

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Guntur Dist Vs Moparthi Nagamani

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tummalapalli Srinu and 3 Others

Kakarla Kasinath, Vs Kakarla Suvarna, & Another

Sri Buddi Chandra Mohan, Hyd Vs State of a.P., Rep. by Spl. P.P., Kurnool

M.Radhakrishnareddy Vs State of Ap.