FAIR COPY
IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (II ADDITIONAL
DISTRTICT JUDGE) NALGONDA AT SURYAPET.
(DATED, THIS, THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY, 2022)
PRESENT: SRI P.VASANTH
CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.-CUM-II-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE:
MVOP No.218 of 2014
Between
1. Nookala Vanaja W/o. late Narsimha Reddy, aged:42 years, Occ: Household R/o.H.No. 1-7-185/1, Khammam Cross-Roads, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District
2. Nookala Pradhyumna Reddy S/o. Late Narsimha Reddy, aged:21 years, Occ: Student R/o.H.No. 1-7- 185/1, Khammam Cross-Rods, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District, presently residing at USA, rep. by his GPA Holder i.e. the petitioner No.1 herein..
--PETITIONERS
A N D
1. Boddu Nagaiah S/o. Sailu, aged:40 years, occ: Driver-cum-Owner of Bolero Bearing No.AP-24-AS- 1413, R/o. House No.2-6-201/8, near Krishna Talkies, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, 45 and 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014
--RESPONDENTS
This petition is coming for consideration before me in the presence of Sri Nookala Sudarshan Reddy, Counsel
for the petitioners, and of Sri M.Eshwar Kumar, Counsel for
the respondent No.1, and of Sri J.Sashidhar, Counsel for Respondent No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Tribunal made the following:
Page 2 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet)
ORDER
1.This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V Act” for brevity) against the respondents 1 and 2 seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization for the death of husband of the claimant No.1 viz., Nookala
Narsimha Reddy in a motor vehicle accident.
2. Respondent No.1 is the driver-cum-owner of the offending Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP-24-AS- 1413 while Respondent No.2 is the insurance
Company.
3.The case of the claimants, as averred in the claim petition, is briefly stated as follows:
On 18.4.2014 the deceased-Nookala Narsimha
Reddy along with his co-business men had been to
Nalgonda in Bolero Jeep bearing No.AP-24-AS-1413 of respondent No.1 to attend a business meeting. While they were returning to Suryapet, around 2.30 p.m., when the jeep reached Bharath Petrol Bunk, situated
Page 3 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet) on the outskirts of Nakrekal, on NH No.65, the driver of Bolero Jeep drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and rammed into the stationed lorry bearing No.AP-29-TB-4887. In the impact of the accident, the deceased and other commuters of the
Bolero Jeep sustained severe injuries. The deceased died on the spot. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero Jeep bearing No.AP-24-AS-1413. The SHO. P.S. Nakrekal registered a case in Crime No.28/2014 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC against the driver of the Bolero jeep and laid charge sheet for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC.
The deceased was quite hale and healthy, aged 48 years, technically qualified in CTI, Hyderabad in welding course and was the Proprietor of “Reddy
Engineering Works” at Suryapet, earning Rs.45,000/- per month as he had established his workshop twenty years ago. He was the sole breadwinner in the family who would maintain the family and he was an income tax payee. Hence, Respondents 1 and 2 are liable to
Page 4 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet) pay compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- under all the heads.
4. On receipt of notices issued by this Tribunal,
Respondents 1 and 2 appeared and filed counters resisting the claim petition .
5.Respondent No.1 (Driver-cum-owner) of offending jeep filed counter averring that the lorry bearing No.AP-20-TB-4887 was parked in the middle of the road and in the process of overtaking it, respondent No.1 rammed into the stationed lorry. The lorry Driver is solely responsible for the accident on account of his negligent parking of the lorry in the middle of the road and insurer of the lorry is necessary party to the proceedings. With these main contentions, respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. The 2nd respondent is the insurance company with whom offending Bolero Jeep was insured.
Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the driver-cum-owner of The Bolero Jeep was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of
Page 5 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet) accident; denied the involvement of Bolero jeep in the accident and pleaded ignorance of the health condition, age, business, income, etc. of the deceased. It is further pleaded that in the event of
Tribunal awarding any compensation contributory negligence to be taken into consideration as the driver of stationed lorry, who parked it on NH No.65 in negligent manner, is also liable to pay compensation.
With these averments, Respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by this Tribunal:
1. Whether on 18.1.2014 at 2.30 p.m near Bharath
Petrol Bunk at the outskirts of Nakrekal on NH No.65 the driver of Bolero bearing No.AP-24-AS-1413 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.AP-29-
TB_4887 and thereby caused the death of Nookala
Narsimha Reddy, who was travelling in the said
Bolero?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
Page 6 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet)
8. During the course of enquiry, 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1 and she also examined supporting witnesses as PWs.2 to 4. The petitioner marked in evidence Exs.A1 to A8, while R2 got marked
Ex.B1 certificate of insurance. The details of which shall be noted at the appendix of evidence.
9. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 filed written arguments and oral arguments on either side were heard.
10. Issue No.1
Whether on 18.1.2014 at 2.30 p.m near Bharath Petrol
Bunk at the outskirts of Nakrekal on NH No.65 the driver of Bolero bearing No.AP-24-AS-1413 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.AP-29-TB_4887 and thereby caused the death of Nookala Narsimha
Reddy, who was travelling in the said Bolero?
So far as this issue is concerned, certified copy of
First Information Report and certified copy of charge sheet are pertinent documents. Ex.A4 is the FIR issued against R1 by noting his Bolero Jeep number upon the complaint of one V.Rajender Reddy that Respondent
Page 7 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet)
No.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and crushed into the parked lorry bearing
No.AP-240-TB-4887 from rear side which was parked on the left side of the NH Road No.65, due to which his father, V.Linga Reddy and two others died on the spot.
While the accused driver/Respondent No.1 sustained bleeding injuries. While so, it is noted in the charge sheet that the deceased and other businessmen were returning from Nalgonda to Suryapet after attending a meeting and when their Bolero Jeep negotiated the village limits of Nakrekal on NH No.65, close to
Bharath Petrol Bunk, the accused driver drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed around 14.30 hours he failed to control the jeep which went extreme left side margin of the road and hit against the stationed lorry bearing No.AP-29-TB-4887.
The lorry was parked on the extreme left side margin the road and its driver was having lunch in a road side hotel; the lorry left Chityal for Vijayawada with the load of broken rice; after hitting the lorry, Bolero Jeep turned turtle up to median of the road and in the said
Page 8 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet) mishap four commuters of the Bolero Jeep received severe injuries and died on the spot, while the driver sustained severe injuries. Thus the offences under
Sections 304-A and 338 IPC are established against the accused driver (R1 herein). Hence, Ex. FIR and charge sheet contents, present concrete evidence to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero Jeep by Respondent No.1.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
11. Issue No.2
The petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW1 whose contents are virtual reiteration of the claim petition. She denied the suggestion that since the lorry was stationed in the middle of the road, Bolero
Jeep crushed into the lorry from road side. She denied the suggestion that accident took place because of lorry and non-joinder of lorry owner, driver and insurer in this petition is bad in law; denied that her husband was not earning Rs.45,000/- per month; she stated that her late husband would pay Rs.5 Lakhs towards income tax. She denied the suggestion that
Page 9 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet) the accident took place only because of the driver of lorry, Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation.
12. PW2 deposed about the mode of accident, sound health condition of the deceased, his income and so on. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was not an eye witness to the accident.
13. PW3 is examined in support of case of PW1 and like PW2 he graphically described the mode of accident. It was elicited in his cross-examination that one of the deceased was his co-brother.
14. PW4 is examined by an Advocate
Commissioner and this witness is professional Auditor with 23 years of experience. He referred to Exs.A1 to
A3 Form-V for the assessment years 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2011-12 belonging to the deceased. He gave corresponding income of the deceased for the aforesaid years as Rs.3,95,600/-, Rs.4,15,000/- and
Rs.3,95,000/-. In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that for the year 2011-12 the total income mentioned as Rs.3,11,450/- and for
Page 10 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet) 2013-14 the total income as per IT returns was
Rs.2,95,800/- after deduction under Chapter-V (a).
15. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the accidental death of the deceased. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
16. Issue No.2
The bone of contention between the learned
Counsel for the petitioners and Respondent No.2 was as regards the computing of gross Income Tax Returns or income reflected in the Income Tax Returns to assess the compensation. Without delving much into this aspect, suffice it to place reliance on Sarla
Varma’s case, wherein it is explicitly held that the actual income of the deceased, less income tax, should be starting point for calculation of the compensation. This court is in complete agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent that only net income less income tax should be taken into consideration while
Page 11 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet) assessing the quantum of compensation as this ratio is laid down in Sarla Varma’s case.
16. To arrive at the quantum of compensation, the testimony of PW4 (professional auditor) is to be taken into consideration. Be it noted that, Pw1 (wife of the deceased) admitted it to be true in her cross- examination that as per the household card and
Aadhar card, the date of birth of her husband is 8.9.1963 and the same date is reflected in the ration card. It is needless to add that more sanctity has to be attached to this piece of evidence to ascertain the age of the deceased.
17. The compensation is calculated in the following tabular form:
CALCULATION TABLE
Average income per annum Rs.3,07,416/- basing on Ex.A1 to A3 income tax returns) Income for the following years as per Income tax returns; 2011-12 - Rs.3,11,450-00 2012-13 - Rs.3,15,000-00 2013-14 - Rs.2,95,800-00 ---------------- Rs. 9,22,250-00 / 3 = Rs.3,07,416/- Future prospects @ 10% as10% of Rs. 3,07,416/-= the deceased was self-Rs.30,741.60 rounded to Rs.30,742/ ) employee) Thus, total loss of income of (As per decision reported in
Page 12 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet)
National Insurancethe deceased woks out to Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Rs.3,38,158/- (Rs.3,07,416/- + Rs.30,742/) Sethi and others)
Deductions of 1/3rd towardsRs.3,38,158/- / 3 = personal and living expensesRs.1,12,719/- of the deceased, since the dependents are 2 in number)Rs.2,25,438/- (As per II Schedule)(Rs.3,38,158/minus Rs.`1,12,719/-)
Multiplier i.e. 11 (as perRs.2,25,438/- x ‘11’ = Second Schedule and SectionRs.24,79,818/- 166 of MV Act)
As per decision reported in National Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the
following amounts are awarded Compensation under the headRs.15,000 of “Loss of estate”
Compensation under the headRs.15,000 of “funeral expenses”
Compensation under the headRs.40,000 of “loss of Consortium”
Grand TotalRs.25,49,818/-
Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation ofRs.25,49,818/-. The point is answered accordingly.
18.In the result, the claim petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs thereby awarding the compensation of Rs.25,49,818/- (Rupees twenty
five lakh forty nine thousand eight hundred and
Page 13 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet) eighteen only) to the petitioners 1 and 2 payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally along with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Out of the total compensation amount:
- 1 st petitioner is entitled to Rs.15,49,818/- (Rupees fifteen lakh forty nine thousand
eight hundred and eighteen only)
- 2 nd petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten Lakhs only)
On such deposit,
The 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw
Rs.10,49,818/- (Rupees ten lakh forty nine
thousand eight hundred and eighteen only) and balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of
Five years.
The 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw
Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakh only) and balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept in
Page 14 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet) fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of
Five years.
The rest of the claim of the petitioners is hereby dismissed.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-
Dictated to the Personal Assistant partly, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of January, 2022.
CHAIRMAN,
M.A.C.T.-CUM-II ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE, NALGONDA AT
SURYAPET.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONERS: PW1 Nukala Vanaja PW2: N.Ravinder Reddy PW3: Y.Vijay Kumar Reddy PW4: B.Somaiah
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
None
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
Ex.A1: Copy of Form No.V for the assessment year 2013-14 Ex.A2: Copy of Form No.V for the assessment year 2012-13 Ex.A3: Copy of Form No.V for the assessment year 2011-12 Ex.A4: Copy of FIR in Cr.No.28/1014 of Nakrekal PS along with CC of complaint Ex.A5: CC of charge sheet in Crime No.28/2014 Ex.A6: CC of post-mortem examine tin report Ex.A7: MVI report dt.21.1.2024 in respect of Vehicle No.AP-24- AS-1414 Ex.A8: MVI report dt.21.1.2014 in respect of vehicle No.AP-29- TB-4882
Page 15 of 15 MVOP No.218 of 2014 (Chairman, MACT/II ADJ,Suryapet)
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1 Certificate of insurance policy
CHAIRMAN,
M.A.C.T.-CUM-II ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE, NALGONDA AT
SURYAPET