A V Ravindra Babu, J
1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 13.06.2016, in Original Petition No.58 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum- Additional District Judge, Hindupur („Tribunal‟ for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, on account of the death of V.Venkatesh (herein after referred to as „deceased‟), in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 08.01.2013 at 08.00 p.m., awarded a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- as compensation.
2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that:
(i) The deceased was doing coolie work and also car driver and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month.
(ii) On 08.01.2013, at about 08.00 p.m., the deceased was going in lorry bearing No. AP 02 TA 8348 („offending vehicle‟ for short) from Dommithimarri to his village Cherukur along with his rice bags. When the lorry reached near MPP School, Cherukur Village on Dommithimarri-Penukonda Road, the deceased raised cries to stop the lorry. Then the driver stopped the lorry and negligently moved the same. The deceased who was descending the lorry from the back side, fell on the road and sustained bleeding injury on his head back side and died on the spot. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle.
(iii) A case in crime No.02 of 2013 of Roddam police station was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 being the owner, respondent No.3 being the driver and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the claim.
4. (i) Respondent No.1/owner and respondent No.3/driver of the offending vehicle remained exparte.
(ii) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company got filed a counter contenting in substance that the amount claimed is excessive and the driver of the offending vehicle who caused the accident is not having valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle and the risk is not covered and the crime vehicle was not having valid records. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial:
(1) Whether the death of the deceased-V.Venkatesh, son of Vadusulappa was occurred in a road accident on 08.01.2023, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 02 TA 8348?
(2) Whether the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident?
(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from which of the respondent?
(4) Whether the claim of the petitioners is arbitrary and excessive?
(5) To what relief?
6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.
7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-, towards the compensation and apportioned the same as that of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1, Rs.80,000/- each to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner No.4 and no compensation was apportioned to the respondent No.5.
8. Felt aggrieved of the said award, respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed the present M.A.C.M.A.
9. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the point for determination is:
“Whether the award, dated 13.06.2016, in Original Petition No.58 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum- Additional District Judge, Hindupur, in awarding the compensation of Rs.4,10,000/-, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?”
10. In this matter, firstly this Court would like to make it clear that the claimants did not contest. However, as the claimant Nos.2 and 3 were the minors, this Court appointed Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, as a counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, so as to defend them, as such, she has participated in the hearing.
11. Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that it is the specific case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was unauthorized passenger in the vehicle, for which the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. The Tribunal did not consider the contention of the Insurance Company in a proper prospective. Hence, the Insurance Company may be absolved of the claim.
12. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the Tribunal rightly analyzed the evidence on record and made proper findings with regard to the rash and negligent act alleged against the driver of the offending vehicle and the crime vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company and the contention that the Insurance Company is not liable cannot be accepted. Hence, prays to dismiss the M.A.C.M.A.
13. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, who was the petitioner No.1, she in her chief examination put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. During her examination, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. Ex.A1 was the true copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 was the true copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 was the true copy of Inquest report. Ex.A4 was the true copy of P.M.Certificate. Ex.A5 was the true copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A6 was the Xerox copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.A7 was the Xerox copy of Driving license. Ex.A8 was the Original Driving license of the deceased.
14. Claimants examined PW.2, who was the direct witness to the incident, who speak of the incident. The evidence of PW.2 discloses that on 08.01.2013, at 08.00 p.m., he and one Uppara Narasimhappa were talking near MPP School, deceased Venkatesh was coming in the offending lorry bearing No. AP 02 TA 8348 from Dommithimarri to Cherukur along with rice bags. Lorry reached near MPP School at Cherukur, he raised cries to stop the lorry. Driver stopped the lorry. The deceased got down from the lorry cabin. Again he got into the body of the lorry to get the rice bags. Then the driver of the lorry negligently moved the same. While he was descending the lorry from the back side, he fell on the road and sustained bleeding injury on his head back side and died on the spot. The accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.
15. It is to be noted that the evidence of PW.2 has support from the outcome of the investigation. Police filed charge sheet alleging that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending lorry. As seen from Ex.A2-charge sheet also police alleged rash and negligent act against the driver of the offending vehicle.
16. It is to be noted that according to the testimony of PW.2, who was witness to the occurrence, firstly the deceased got down from the cabin and when he got into the body of the lorry to get rice bags, driver moved the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. So the evidence on record proves the fact that it was not a case that the deceased was travelling in the body of the lorry. On the other hand, evidence of PW.2 discloses that he travelled in the cabin of the lorry. One cannot dispute the fact that in the cabin of the lorry, apart from the driver seat, some seating arrangements would be there. So, it cannot be held that the deceased was unauthorized passenger. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver in driving the offending vehicle.
17. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day, there by Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and arrived at net income as that of Rs.24,000/- per annum and applied multiplier „15‟ and arrived at 3,60,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, towards consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards the funeral expenses.
18. It is to be noted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.Pranay Sethi and others 2017(16) SCC 680, compensation under the conventional heads is only Rs.70,000/-, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expense should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. However, in an Insurance Company appeal, in the absence of cross-objections, compensation cannot be enhanced. The evidence adduced by the claimants would goes to prove that the deceased was not unauthorized passenger travelling in the body of the offending lorry. On the other hand, he travelled in the cabin, where is some seating capacity and the accident was occurred when the deceased got into the body of the lorry to unload something. Hence, it cannot be held that the Insurance Company cannot made liable to pay the compensation. There is no dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Absolutely, it is not a case where pay and recovery can be ordered, because, the deceased in the set of circumstances cannot be termed as unauthorized passenger in the body of the lorry.
19. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the award, dated 13.06.2016, in Original Petition No.58 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum- Additional District Judge, Hindupur, needs no interference.
20. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs. Appellant shall deposit the rest of the compensation, if any, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their share of compensation in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
