C Janaki, Vs v Babu

¶1

1

¶2

APHC010022542022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3333]

¶5

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 20/2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

C JANAKI, W/O LATE C BHASKAR NAIDU, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AADHAR NO - 591448420636 ,

¶11

C GUNASREE, D/O LATE C BHASKAR NAIDU, HINDU, STUDENT, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, AADHAR NO - 732565794034 ,

¶12

MINOR C VANISREE, D/O C BHASKAR NAIDU, HINDU, STUDENT, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, AADHAR NO - 775558382525 ,

¶13

MINOR C YUGANDHAR GOPAL, S/O C BHASKAR NAIDU, HINDU, STUDENT, HOUSEWIFE, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, AADHAR NO – 769232743180.

¶14

C DAMODARAM NAIDU, S/O LATE C GOPAL NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, DEPENDANT, AADHAR NO – 242866069300.

¶15

C KANAMMA, W/O C DAMODARARN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, AADHAR NO – 338766626455 (DIED)

¶16

...APPELLANT(S)

¶17

AND

¶18

V BABU, S/O V CHINNABBA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT H/O AYYAPPAGARIPALLI VILLAGE, PUTHALAPATTU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, DRIVER OF THE AUTO BEARING NO AP-03-TK-1300.

¶19

2

¶20

M GAJENDRAN, S/O P MUTHUSWAMY, I IINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D.NO.15-360, VINAYAKAPURAM, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICTM, OWNER OF THE AUTO BEARING NO AP-03- TK-1300 ,

¶21

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRA MANAGER, MITTOOR, CHITOOR HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT D.NO.20-179, JAILKHANA STREET, MITTOOR, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT (POLICY NO - 3368/01090284/000/00 VALID FROM 04-05-2018 TO 03-05-2019)

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶24

1.V HEMANTH KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GUDI SRINIVASU

¶27

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 20/2022

¶31

J U D G M E N T:

¶32

The present Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants aggrieved by the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum VIII Addiutional district Judge, Chittoor, dated 11.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.284 of 2018 wherein the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.18,25,000/- as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, for the death of the deceased namely Bhaskar Naidu.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶34

The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 r/w Rules 455 and 475 of the A.P Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of deceased – Bhaskar Naidu in a motor vehicle accident.

¶35

1^st petitioner is the wife, 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are minor daughters, 4^th petitioner is minor son, 5^th petitioner is father and 6^th petitioner is mother of the deceased – Bhaskar Naidu. During the life time of deceased, he was hale, healthy and energetic, aged 46 years as on the date of accident and doing mason work, getting a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards his salary and also getting Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agricultural operations and contributing the same to the welfare and development of his family. On 31.08.2018 after completion of his work at Kotlapalli village and while he was proceeding from Kotlapalli village towards Kondakindapalli on the left side of the road on foot, and when he reached near Malleswaraswamy Konda on Kotlapalli – Ayyappagaripalli road, at about 7.15 P.M, one Auto bearing registration No.AP-03-TK-1300 coming from Kotlapalli village driven by 1^st respondent/driver in a rash and

¶36

4

¶37

negligent manner and dashed on the back side Bhaskar Naidu, in result, he fell down on the road and sustained injuries all over the body and died at the spot; the accident was occurred purely due to the negligent act of 1^st respondent/ driver, 2^nd respondent is the owner of said crime vehicle and 3^rd respondent is insurer of said auto. On the complaint given by 5^th petitioner a case in Cr.No.86/2018 U/sec.304(A) and 279 of IPC was registered at Puthalapurtu Police Station against 1^st respondent. As the claimants lost the moral and financial support in their life due to the untimely death of the deceased, they filed the present petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶38

2^nd Respondent filed Counter and the same was adopted by 1^st Respondent. The Contention of 2^nd respondent is that - there is no negligence on the part of 1^st respondent/driver, but the police of Puthalapattu Police Station falsely registered a case against 1^st respondent and the police filed a charge sheet before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor to help the family of petitioners; deceased himself crossed the road in a drunken manner and fell on the vehicle of this respondent; deceased himself responsible for the accident; the vehicle insured with the 3^rd respondent and the policy was in-force on the date of accident and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Contention of 3^rd respondent, in nutshell, is that: this respondent does not admit the age and occupation of deceased mentioned in the claim petition as they are not correct; alleged occupation of the deceased is also not correct; driver of the crime vehicle is not possessed any valid driving license at the time of accident, vehicle of 2^nd respondent has no valid permit to ply in the alleged route; the compensation claimed by the petitioners is very high and the petition deserves for dismissal.

¶40

Basing on the rival contentions put-forth by both parties, the following issues have been settled for trial.

¶41

5

¶42

1. Whether the deceased C.Bhaskar Naidu died of injuries received in Motor Vehicle Accident which took place on 31.08.2018 at about 7.15 PM due to rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent auto bearing No.AP 03-TK-1300?

¶43

1. Whether the petitioners 1 to 6 being the L.Rs., of deceased are entitled for compensation amount? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

¶44

1. To what relief?

¶45

On behalf of petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex’s.A.1 to Ex.A.11 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3 were marked.

¶46

On behalf of respondents, no witness was examined; but, Ex.B.1 –copy of insurance policy was marked with consent on behalf of 3^rd respondent with consent.

¶47

With regard to Issue No.1, the Tribunal relying on the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1^st respondent, because of which, the deceased died on the spot.

¶48

Coming to the point of quantum, the Tribunal by relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 which were marked through P.W.1 as well as Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3 which were marked through P.W.3, gave a finding that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month while working as a Mason and accordingly considering the age of the deceased as 46 years and after adding 25% towards his future prospectus, has considered total income of the deceased as (Rs.12,000/- + 25% (3000) = ) Rs.15,000/- per month. After deducting 1/4^th towards his personal expenses, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.11,250/- per month. By applying the appropriate multiplier 13, the Tribunal awarded (11,250 x 12 x 13 =) Rs.17,55,000/- towards loss of income. In addition to that, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss

¶49

6

¶50

of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, making a total sum of Rs.70,000/- under non-conventional heads. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.18,25,000/-.

¶51

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement on the ground that the Tribunal failed to award under the head of loss of consortium to the other claimants i.e., claimants 2 to 6 who are none other than the minor children and the parents of the deceased and also on the ground though the claimants have marked Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.8 to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a mason and in support of which they got examined P.W.3. The Court below considered the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month.

¶52

As the accident took place in the year 2018, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the income assessed by the Tribunal. But, however, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal admittedly failed to award compensation under the head of Consortium in favour of the appellant No’s.2 to 6, who are none other than the minor children and parents of the deceased.

¶53

In "National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, the Apex Court held that the family members are also entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium.

¶54

In view of the same, as the appellant No.6 died, appellant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each, which comes to Rs.1,60,000/-, under the head of loss of consortium.

¶55

In total, the appellant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled to Rs.19,85,000/-towards compensation.

¶56

7

¶57

13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows:

¶58

S.No.	Head of the claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Ps.	Amounts now enhanced by this Court Rs. Ps.
1.	Towards loss of dependency	17,55,000-00	17,55,000-00
2.	Towards loss of estate	15,000-00	15,000-00
3.	Towards funeral expenses	15,000-00	15,000-00
4.	Towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1	40,000-00	40,000-00
5.	Towards loss of consortium to appellant Nos.2 to 5 (Rs.40,000 x 4)	--	1,60,000-00
	Total	18,25,000-00	19,85,000-00

¶59

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 18,25,000/- to Rs.19,85,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶61

_______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

KS Dated 02.02.2026.

8

68

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA