1 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLES
ACCIDENTS TRIBUNAL-CUM-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
Tuesday, this the 10th day of March, 2026
Present:-Smt B. Aparna Devi, I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Hanumakonda.
FAC:Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.
M.V.O.P.NO. 716 OF 2022
(old MVOP NO. 18 of 2021) BETWEEN:
1. Muthyala Stephen Paul @ Indra Sena Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged: 60 years, Occu: Pastor (Presently Nil).
2. Muthyala Supriya Rose, D/o. Muthyala Stephen Paul @ Indra Sena Reddy, Aged: 27 years, Occu: Housewife. Both are R/o: H.No. 4-3-117, Kothur Janda, Hanumakonda, Warangal. AND
1. Taj Pratap Singh, S/o. Jagat Pal, Aged: 30 years, Occu: Driver of Goods Carriage bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789, R/o: Rajpur village, Khanapur Dehat District, Uttar Pradesh-209115.
2. Kapu Venkata Lakshman, S/o. Nageshwara Rao, Aged: Major, Occu: Owner of crime vehicle, R/o: FNO 2C, Pine Wood Apartments, Ist Line, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur-522 007.
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Naim Nagar, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
4. Mohd Afwan, S/o. Raheem, Age: 27 years, Occu: Auto Driver, R/o: H.No. 5-1-54, Kothur, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
5. Hameed Ali Khan, S/o. Iqbal Ali, Aged: Major, Occu: Owner of Auto, R/o: C/o. Mohd Raheem, H.No. 4-3-31, 2nd Floor, Kothur, Hanumakonda, Warangal. …Respondents
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
2 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
This Original Petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Nageshwar Rao, Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vanukuri Venkata Subba Reddy, Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and of Sri A. Madan Mohan Rao, Counsel
for the respondent No.3 and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 having
been chosen to remained ex parte; upon hearing and on consideration of the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till date, this Tribunal made the following:
:: A W A R D ::
1.This is the claim petition filed by the petitioners, who are husband and daughter of the deceased - Venkanna under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989, with a prayer to grant compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- together with costs and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of compensation amount towards special and general damages against the respondents, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
(i) The petitioner No.1, is the husband and the petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the deceased, A. Yesumani @ Muthyala Yesumani.
(ii) On 14.09.2019, the deceased, A. Yesumani @ Muthyala
Yesumani, left her house to attend her regular duties and boarded an auto bearing No. AP 36 TA 1221. While she was proceeding towards Rayaparthy village at about 10:30 a.m., when the auto reached Ramaram Ring Road Flyover Bridge, the driver of the auto
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
3 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 noticed a pit on the road and applied sudden brakes, due to which the auto ran into the pit and turned turtle. At the same time, a lorry bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the auto from the opposite direction, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
(iii) It is further pleaded that the deceased was a Government employee and used to contribute her earnings for the welfare of the family. She used to guide the petitioners and was the only earning member (kartha) of the family, as the petitioner No.1 has no regular income and has been confined to the house for a long time due to old-age ailments. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners were put to untold mental agony. They lost the love, affection, and guidance of the deceased. The petitioners were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased, and after her demise, they have been put to great hardship and are leading a miserable life. They have lost their livelihood, and there is no other person to look after their welfare and maintenance. If the deceased had been alive, she would have brought up petitioner No.2 with a good standard of living and would have provided food and medicines to petitioner No.1 in his old age and taken care of their welfare. However, petitioner No.1 has lost his wife and is unable to
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
4 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 attend to any work, and the petitioners have been put to untold misery, mental agony, stress, and inconvenience, and they have not yet recovered from the shock and grief. They have lost the contribution of the deceased, her services, guidance, love, and affection, which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. The petitioners, being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under various heads.
(iv) It is further pleaded that on the complaint given by petitioner
No.1, the police of Kakatiya University Campus registered a case in
Crime No. 228/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the drivers of the auto and the goods carriage bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789, who are responsible for the accident, and subsequently filed a charge sheet.
(v) It is further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the gross and negligent driving of the driver of the goods carriage bearing No.
AP 07 TG 2789, i.e., respondent No.1. If the driver had been cautious and diligent while driving the vehicle, the accident might not have taken place and the deceased might have been leading a happy life. The respondent No.2 is the registered owner of the said vehicle and respondent No.3 is the insurance company with which the goods carriage bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789 was insured vide
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
5 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
Policy No. 71070031190100016339, valid from 03.09.2019 to 02.09.2020, and the said policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.4 is the driver of the auto and respondent No.5 is the registered owner of the said auto. Hence, all the respondents herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioners.
3.The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 remained ex parte.
4(i). The respondent No.1, being the driver of the goods carriage, filed a counter denying all the averments made in the petition, including the age, income, and avocation of the deceased. The respondent further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are highly excessive. The respondent also denied the manner in which the accident is alleged to have occurred.
(ii) The respondent further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 36 TA 1221, in which the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident. It is contended that the said auto driver failed to follow the traffic rules and regulations and drove the vehicle without observing the oncoming vehicles on the road, thereby causing the accident.
Hence, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that the goods
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
6 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 carriage bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789 was insured with respondent
No.3 Insurance Company at the time of the alleged accident vide
Policy No. 71070031190100016339, valid from 03.09.2019 to 02.09.2020. Therefore, respondent No.1 prayed that the petition against him be dismissed and contended that if any compensation is awarded, respondent No.3 alone is liable to indemnify and pay the same.
(iii). It is further pleaded that the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 36 TA 1221 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident and was not a competent person to drive the said auto. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, the accident occurred. Hence, the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
5(i). The respondent No.2, being the owner of the goods carriage, filed a counter denying all the averments made in the petition, including the age, income, and avocation of the deceased. The respondent further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are highly excessive and also denied the manner of the accident as alleged in the petition. The respondent further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the auto/respondent No.4 bearing No. AP 36
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
7 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
TA 1221, in which the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident. It is contended that the said auto driver failed to follow the traffic rules and regulations and drove the vehicle without observing the oncoming vehicles on the road, thereby causing the accident.
Hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.2 further pleaded that the goods carriage bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789 was insured with respondent
No.3 Insurance Company at the time of the alleged accident vide
Policy No. 71070031190100016339, valid from 03.09.2019 to 02.09.2020. Therefore, respondent No.2 prayed that the petition against him be dismissed and contended that if any compensation is awarded, respondent No.3 alone is liable to indemnify and pay the same.
(ii) It is further pleaded that the driver of the auto (respondent No.4) bearing No. AP 36 TA 1221 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident and was not a competent person to drive the said auto. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, the accident occurred. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
8 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 6(i). The respondent No.3 filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the petition, including the age, income, and avocation of the deceased. The respondent further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are highly excessive and also denied the manner of the accident as alleged in the petition. It is further submitted that the petitioners may be directed to call upon the owner of the crime vehicle to produce and prove the policy of insurance, failing which it shall be presumed that respondent No.3 is not the insurer in the instant case and the name of respondent No.3 may be expunged from the array of parties with compensatory costs.
(ii) It is further contended that respondent No.4 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and thereby contravened Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, respondent No.4 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the claim petitioners. The respondent No.5, knowing fully well that respondent No.4 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, permitted him to drive the vehicle, thereby contravening
Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, respondent Nos.4 and 5 alone are liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed against the respondent
No.3 Company.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
9 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
(iii) The respondent No.3 further submitted that the concerned police failed to comply with the provisions of Section 158(6) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, which are mandatory. The respondent No.3 further submits that the driver or the insured failed to furnish information regarding the accident to the insurer, which is mandatory under Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
(iv) It is further submitted that, as per the averments in the petition and the police records, the crime vehicle and the auto of respondent
No.4 came from opposite directions and collided with each other.
There is negligence on the part of respondent No.1 to a greater extent. If the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, the same is payable by the owner of the auto. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
(v) The respondent Company seeks protection under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 64VB of the Insurance
Act, 1938. The respondent Company may also be permitted to take all the defences available to it under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act on all grounds, apart from those specified under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, in case respondent Nos.4 and 5 fail to contest the matter. The respondent Company may also be
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
10 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 permitted to file an additional counter at a later stage, if necessary.
Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.
7.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-
1) Whether accident occurred on 14.09.2019 at
about 10:30 hours near Flyover Bridge, Ramaram,
Hasanparthy due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789,
which resulting in the death of the deceased A.
Yesumani @ Muthyala Yesumani, W/o. Muthyala
Stephen Paul @ Indra Sena Reddy?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation, if so, to what amount and from
whom ?
3) To what relief?
8.During the trial, the claim petitioner No.1 got filed his chief evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW1 and got marked Exs-A1 to A7 and got examined one of the eye witness to the accident, Sri Manda Sundar as PW2. The Petitioner also examined Dr. Divya as PW.3, and Exs. X-1 and X-2 were marked through the learned Advocate-Commissioner.
(ii). Despite affording sufficient opportunities, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 failed to adduce any evidence. Accordingly, the evidence on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were closed by this Tribunal.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
11 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
(iii) On behalf of the respondent No.3 company one P. Rajender,
Assistant Manager, filed chief evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as RW1 and got marked Ex-B1 and also filed petition under Section 170 of M.V. Act and the same is allowed.
9.Heard arguments. Perused the citation filed by the petitioners and the entire record.
10.ISSUE NO.1: Whether accident occurred on 14.09.2019
at about 10:30 hours near Flyover Bridge, Ramaram,
Hasanparthy due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of Lorry bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789, which resulting in the
death of the deceased A. Yesumani @ Muthyala Yesumani,
W/o. Muthyala Stephen Paul @ Indra Sena Reddy?
(i).It is the contention of the claim petitioners that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing
No. AP 36 TA 1221. It is stated that the auto driver noticed a pit on the road and suddenly applied brakes, due to which the auto ran into the pit and turned turtle. At the same time, a lorry bearing No.
AP 07 TG 2789, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the auto from the opposite direction, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, resulting in the death of A. Yesumani @ Muthyala
Yesumani.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
12 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
(ii). It is the contention of respondent No.3 that the driver of the auto/respondent No.4 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that he was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. It is further contended that the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 36 TA 1221 failed to drive the vehicle by following the traffic rules and regulations and thereby contributed to the accident. Therefore, the insurer and the owner of the said auto are necessary parties to the claim petition. Hence, respondent No.3 Company prayed that it may be exonerated from liability.
11(i). In support of their contention, petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. Through his evidence,
Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the First
Information Report along with the complaint; Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet; Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the inquest report; Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the post-mortem examination report; Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the crime detail form; Ex.A6 is the salary certificate of the deceased for the month of August, 2019; and Ex.A7 is the copy of the PAN card of the deceased.
(ii) In the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he was not an eyewitness to the accident. He denied the suggestion that the
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
13 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the auto, who is respondent No.4, and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry (respondent No.1). He further denied the suggestion that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and that the auto was not covered by a valid insurance policy and that a false case was foisted against respondent No.1. He also denied the suggestion that the petitioners were not dependents on the deceased and that respondent No.3
Company is not liable to pay any compensation as the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry (respondent No.1). He denied the other suggestions put to him.
12(i). The evidence of PW2, Manda Sundar, discloses that while he was working as a coolie near Ramaram Flyover Bridge, he noticed an auto bearing No. AP 36 PA 1221 proceeding from Bheemaram towards Hasanparthy. The said auto was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, as a result of which the driver lost control over the vehicle and the auto turned turtle.
Meanwhile, a lorry bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789, coming from the
Hasanparthy side and driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down from the auto onto the road,
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
14 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 sustained grievous injuries to the head and other parts of the body, and died on the spot.
(ii) In the cross-examination, he admitted that he witnessed the accident from a distance of about 20 feet and that the distance between the lorry and the auto immediately prior to the accident was about 10 feet. He further stated that the auto turned turtle and the lorry was over the auto. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred only due to the auto turning turtle and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. He further denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the accident. He denied the other suggestions put to him.
13(i). PW3, Dr. K. Divya, Medical Officer, Mandal Primary Health
Centre, Rayaparthy, deposed that as per the service records, A.
Yesumani was working as a Public Health Nurse and had joined service as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) on 19.05.1986. She further deposed that, as per the service records, the date of birth of the deceased was recorded as 12.04.1962 and that she died on 14.09.2019. She also stated that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.1,00,548/- and that after deductions, her net salary was
Rs.93,288/-. She further deposed that, as per the Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS), the date of superannuation of
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
15 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 the deceased was 30.04.2020. She also admitted that the deceased died while she was in service.
(ii) In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for respondent
No.3, she denied the suggestion that the deceased was not working in the Primary Health Centre as on the date of her death and that she had already retired from service. She stated that, as per Ex.X2, the salary of the deceased after deductions for the month of
February, 2019 was Rs.52,714/-. She denied the other suggestions put to her.
14 .RW1-P. Rajender, Assistant Manager, of respondent
No.3/Insurance company filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of chief- examination which is nothing but replica of written statement of respondent No.3 and through him Ex-B1 is marked. In the cross- examination, he admitted that the lorry involved in the accident and covered with the insurance as on the date of the accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred is not due to negligence of R4/Auto Driver and also denied that the R1 drove the vehicle negligently resulting to the accident. He further admitted that the accident occurred when the lorry driven by R-1 dashed the auto rickshaw which was already fell aside. He also denied that R-1 is totally responsible for the accident occurred. He admitted that the investigator was appointed by them to thoroughly investigate the
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
16 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 accident. As per the their investigation the deceased was employee in health department. He denied other suggestions put forth to him.
15(i). The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3, coupled with the contents of
Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 and X2, clearly discloses the date, time, place, and manner of occurrence of the accident and establishes that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, resulting in the death of the deceased.
(ii). In view of the above findings, this Court holds that the accident occurred when the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing No.
AP 36 TA 1221 while proceeding towards Rayaparthy village at about 10:30 a.m. When the auto reached Ramaram Ring Road
Flyover Bridge, the driver of the auto noticed a pit on the road and suddenly applied brakes, due to which the auto ran into the pit and turned turtle. At the same time, a lorry bearing No. AP 07 TG 2789, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against the auto from the opposite direction. As a result of the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Therefore, this Court finds that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, resulting in the death of the deceased. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
17 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
16. ISSUE NO.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?
(i).Since the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is proved, the petitioners are entitled for compensation.
(ii).In order to calculate the quantum of compensation, this Court considered the following aspects.
17.It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for in the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioners filed the following citations:
(I) Rajwati @ Rajjo Vs. United India Insurance
Company Limited reported in Civil Appeal No. 8179 of 2022 (Arising out of special leave petition © No. 30754 of 2019) dated 09.12.2022, in which the Honourable Apex
Court held that “ It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunals role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor cycle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
18 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of 4 (2020) 13 SCC 486 probability and not the strict standard of proof beyound all reasonable doubt, which is followed in criminal cases”.
(II) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Shila Datta and Others reported in 2011 (7)
Supreme 129, in which the Honourable Apex Court held that “ A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete
Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the persons
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
19 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or sec 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act.
(ii) The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo moto initiated by the
Tribunal.
(iii). The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
(III) The APSRTC represented by its General
Manager and Another Vs. M. Ramadevi and Others
reported in 2008(1) Supreme 566, in which the
Honourable Apex Court held that
“ (a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – The Act does not prohibit the Tribunal/Court from awarding a compensation in excess of the claimed amount – Their
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
20 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 function is to award “just” compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record –
Further, in such cases there is no question of the claim becoming time – barred – it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action (Para 9).
In Nagappa Vs. Gurdial Singh and Ors.
(2003 (2) SCC 274) Para No.21 as “For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the
Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award 'just compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action.
(IV) Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. National Insurance
Company Limited & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 11042 of 2018 (Arising out of special leave petition © No. 17321 of
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
21 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 2016) dated16.11.2018, in which the Honourable Apex
Court held that “ Section 168 of the Act is deals with the award of the claims Tribunal whereas Section 169 of the Act provides procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. As has been held by this
Court (Three Judge Bench), the claim petition filed under the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial Lis in the traditional sense but it is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is a complete Code in itself. (See United India
Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors.
2011 (10) SCC 509).
(a). First, the appellants had adduced sufficient evidence to prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted in death of Rajendra Prasad.
(b). Second, the appellants filed material documents to prove the factum of the accident and the persons involved therein.
(c). Third, the documents clearly established the identity of the Truck involved in the accident, the identity of the driver driving the truck, the identity of the owner of the Truck, the name of the insure the offending Truck, the
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
22 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 period of coverage insurance of the Truck, the details of the lodging of FIR in the concerned police station in relation to the accident. In our view, what more documents could be prove the factum of the accident and the persons Involved therein.
(d). Fourth, so far as the driver and owner of the Truck were concerned, both remained ex parte since inception and, therefore, neither contested the appellants' claim petition nor entered into the witness box to rebut the allegations of the appellants made in the claim petition and the evidence. An adverse inference against both could be drawn.
(e). Fifth, so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they also did not examine any witness to rebut the appellants' evidence. The Insurance Company could have adduced evidence by examining the driver of the offending Truck as their witness but it was not done.
(f). Sixth, on the other hand, the appellants examined there witnesses and thereby discharged their initial burden to prove the case.
In the light of the aforementioned seven reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants were able to prove the factum of the accident so also the factum of rash and negligent act of the driver causing the accident. It is also proved that the offending Truck was insured with respondent No.1 at the time of accident and was owned by respondent No.3.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
23 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 18.Age of the deceased:As per the averments of the claim petition, the age of the deceased is 59 years as on the date of accident. No document is filed in proof of age of the deceased. But, as per exhibit, Ex.A7 & X1 the date of birth of the deceased is 12.04.1962 i.e., age of the deceased is 57 years. The accident occurred on 14.09.2019. Therefore, the deceased was aged about 57 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court came to conclusion that the age of the deceased as 57 years as on date of accident. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla
Varma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in 2009 part VI SCC 121, the multiplier is 9 as the deceased is 57 years.
19. Income of the deceased:
(i).It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased worked as an Public Health Nurse and earned Rs.1,00,548/- per month. Ex.A6 payslip for the month of August 2019 is filed before this court. As per Ex.A6, the gross income of the deceased is Rs.1,00,548 and the net income is Rs.93,228 per month. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased is Rs.11,18,736/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Eighteen
Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six Only). After deducting income tax of Rs.98,121/- as per the slab rate in the Year 20198-20.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
24 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
The annual income of the deceased is Rs.10,20,615/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen Only)
20. Medical treatment and Medical Charges:
As the deceased died, while she was on the way to hospital, no medical bills were filed. Hence no amount is awarded under this head.
21. Additions/Future prospects:
In the present case, the deceased was in age group of 57 years, as on the date of accident but without fixed income. Hence, as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the future prospects in case of the deceased, who is self-employed in the age group above 50 years is addition of 10%, = Rs.1,02,061/- (10,20,615 x 10%) (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand and Sixty One only) Total Annual Income = Rs.11,22,676/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs
Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Six Only) (Rs.10,20,615/- + Rs.1,02,061/-).
22. Deductions:
a)The deceased is married and is having 2 dependents. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay
Sethi and Others (2017 ACJ 2700), the Apex Court held that
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
25 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022 “Where the deceased is married person and having 2 to 3, dependent family members the deduction is 1/3 rd.
b)Therefore, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is deducted towards family expenses. Hence, it comes to Rs.3,74,225/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Two Hundred and
Twenty Five Only) (Rs.11,22,676/- X 1/3= Rs.3,74,225/-) per annum.
c)After the above deduction of Rs4,10,203/-, the annual income comes to Rs.8,20,407/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Thousand Four
Hundred and Seven only) (Rs.11,22,676/- minus Rs.3,74,225/- =
Rs.7,48,451/-).
23. Total compensation:
Since the deceased is aged about 57 years, the multiplier is 9. The annual income should be multiplied by 9. Ultimately total income works out to Rs.67,36,055/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Thirty Six
Thousand and Fifty Five only), (Rs.7,48,451/- X 9 = Rs.67,36,059/-.
24. Under conventional Heads:
(a).As per the above Judgment in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others,
the petitioners are entitled for compensation under conventional heads as under:
1)For loss of estateRs. 15,000-00
2)For funeral expensesRs. 15,000-00
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
26 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
3)Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- X 2Rs. 80,000-00
Total :Rs.1,10,000-00
b)In case of National Insurance Company Limited versus
Pranay Sethi and others in SLP [Civil No.25590 of 2014] (S.C)
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “there should be an enhancement of 10% for every 3 years.”
Therefore, in view of the above said decision, compensation is awarded as above by raising 10% under conventional heads. The total amount under conventional heads comes to Rs1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand only). Then the total compensation awarded to the claimants comes to Rs.68,46,059/- (Rupees. Sixty
Eight Lakhs Forty Six Thousand and Fifty Nine Only), (Rs.67,36,059/- + Rs.1,10,000/- = Rs.68,46,059/-).
25. Against whom:
(i).It is the case and argument of the respondent No.2 that the respondent no.4 is responsible for the accused as such the respondent no.3 has to pay the compensation.
(ii).On behalf of the respondent No.3 one P. Rajender, Assistant
Manager, got filed his chief evidence affidavit as RW1 by reiterating the averments of the written statement and got exhibited B1 i.e.
attested true copy of insurance policy. In the cross examination, he admitted that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
27 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
He further admitted that the policy covers third party insurance also. He further admitted that as per their investigation the petitioner was an employee in health department as on suppressed the investigation, as per the police record, the case is registered against the driver of crime vehicle. He denied other suggestions put forth to him.
26.In view of the foregoing discussion and also in view of the findings in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the respondent No.1 being the driver and the respondent No. 2 is owner of the crime vehicle, and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the crime vehicle. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 3, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Since, the crime vehicle is insured with the respondent No.3 vide Ex.B1 Insurance Policy No. 7107 0031 1801 0001 5317 which is valid from 03.09.2019 to 02.09.2020 which is valid at the time of accident as the accident occurred on 14.09.2019. Since, the respondent No.1 is driver of the crime vehicle and the respondent No.2 is owner of the crime vehicle which is insured with respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Hence, the respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners as against the respondents.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
28 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
27. ISSUE NO.3:To what relief?
IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.68,46,059/- (Rupees. Sixty Eight Lakhs Forty Six Thousand and Fifty Nine Only), which is in excess to the compensation claimed by the petitioners as the Tribunal felt it just and reasonable, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, against the respondent No.3, along with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit. Rest of the claim is rejected.
1.Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the above said amount of Rs.68,46,059/- (Rupees. Sixty Eight Lakhs Forty
Six Thousand and Fifty Nine Only), towards compensation with accrued interest and costs within (60) days from the date of this order.
2.Out of total compensation of Rs.68,46,059/- (Rupees. Sixty
Eight Lakhs Forty Six Thousand and Fifty Nine Only), 60% i.e.
Rs.41,07,635/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs Seven Thousand Six
Hundred and Thirty Five only) to the petitioner No.1, towards his share with proportionate costs and interest. Upon such deposit, he is permitted to withdraw his entire share of amount with proportionate costs and interest.
3.Out of total compensation of Rs.68,46,059/- (Rupees. Sixty
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
29 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
Eight Lakhs Forty Six Thousand and Fifty Nine Only), 40% i.e.
Rs.27,38,424/- (Rupees. Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight
Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Four. only) to the petitioner No.2, towards her share with proportionate costs and interest. Upon such deposit, she is permitted to withdraw her entire share of amount with proportionate costs and interest.
4.The petitioners are directed to pay the deficit Court Fee, within 10 days of this order. Thereafter, the Office is directed to prepare the decree.
5.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).
(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 10th day of March, 2026)
Sd/-
CHAIRPERSON,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-
CUM-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONERS:
PW1 -Muthyala Stephen Paul. PW2 -Manda Sundar PW3 -Dr. K. Divya
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK
30 OF 30 MVOP NO. 716 OF 2022
FOR RESPONDENTS:
RW1 -P. Rajender
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex-A1 -Certified copy of FIR along with complaint. Ex-A2 -Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex-A3 -Certified copy of Inquest report. Ex-A4 -Certified copy of PME report. Ex-A5 -Certified copy of Crime Detail Form. Ex-A6 -Pay slip for the month of August 2019. Ex-A7 -PAN Card No. 2374 1283 7940.
Ex.X1- Attested copy of service book of the deceased. Ex.X2- Form No. 12 BB for the financial year 2018-2019 of the deceased.
FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex-B1 -Attested true copy of policy.
Sd/-
CHAIRPERSON,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-
CUM-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
Chairperson,
MACT-CUM-PDJ, HNK