Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
EAGALA LOVATHALLI, E.G.DIST. & 3 OTHRS vs RAYUDU CHINNA RAO, PITHAPURAM & 2 OTHRS
BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 812 of 2013
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023
FACTS
The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Eagala China Apparao in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.07.2008.
On 08.07.2008 the deceased went to Rowthulapudi along with one Killada Srinu to attend cooli work on a lorry and during return journey, when the lorry reached near the bridge in Rowthulapudi, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against an electric pole and thereby, the lorry turned turtle and the deceased sustained fracture and head injury and later, succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the Government General Hospital, Prathipadu. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner, and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
The 3rd respondent filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the 2nd respondent committed breach of terms of the policy.
At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- towards compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimants preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation and for fixation of liability of payment of compensation on the 3rd respondent/Insurance company also.
The grounds urged by the appellants/claimants are that the Tribunal failed to fasten the liability on the 3rd respondent/Insurance company, as the policy covers the risk of the deceased also, andalso failed to observe that the policy clearly discloses that Rs.50/- was collected from the 2nd respondent as L.L. for operation/maintenance of two persons.
On considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.3, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry as a result of that, the deceased died. No appeal was filed by the respondents against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the learned Tribunal.
The claimants claimed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd of income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family members of the deceased arrived at Rs.12,000/- p.a. Here, the deceased was a bachelor. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1, if the deceased is a bachelor, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. In view of the said decision, instead of deducting half of the monthly income of the deceased towards personal living expenses, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the said finding is liable to be set aside.
The accident occurred in the year 2008. As per Ex.A.2, the deceased was aged about 20 years. As per the decision in Sarla Varma case referred above, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is “18”. On considering the entire material on record, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.1,800/- and the annual income is arrived at Rs.21,600/-. So, as per Sarla Varma case, having deducted 50% of the income, Rs.10,800/- (Rs.21,600/- – Rs.10,800/-) is available towards contribution to the family members of the deceased and a sum of Rs.1,94,400/- (Rs.10,800/- x 18) is granted towards total contribution to the family members of the deceased. Apart from that, a sum of Rs.4,600/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. In total, a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- is awarded to the claimants towards compensation.
The deceased was a third party. As per Ex.B.1-policy, a premium of Rs.800/- was paid towards third party liability and Rs.50/- was also paid towards premium of two persons for operation and maintenance, by the 2nd respondent/owner of the offending lorry. Ex.B.1 also reveals that the policy is a comprehensive policy. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
JUDGEMENT
In this case, the appeal was disposed of, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company was directed to pay the total compensation of Rs.2,04,000/-, with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment as awarded by the Tribunal, to the claimants in first and later recover the same from the 2nd respondent/owner of the offending lorry by filing an execution petition and without filing any independent suit. The 3rd respondent/Insurance company was directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of this judgment and later recover the same from the 2nd respondent. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares of compensation as apportioned by the learned Tribunal along with interest.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
