IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE –CUM-
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
KURNOOL.
PRESENT: Sri U.Durga Prasad Rao, B.Com. (Hons.), LL.M.,
Principal District Judge, Kurnool
Monday, the 18th day of June 2012.
M.V.O.P. No.326 of 2010
1. N.Kotta Nayak
2. N.Susela .. Petitioners
-Versus-
1. S.K. Shaik Shavali
2. M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager. .. Respondents
3. M.Jayarani
This petition coming on 01-06-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri M.A. Thirupathaiah, Advocate for the first respondent and Sri T.C.
Venkata Ramana, Advocate for the second respondent; and the third respondent having remained exparte;having heard both sides; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:
O R D E R
In this M.V.O.P., which is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”), the petitioners are claiming compensation on the plea that their son M.Raju Nayak died in an autorickshaw accident that was occurred on the evening of 07-07-2008.
2. The petitioners’ case is thus:
(a) The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased, are residents of Gundal Thanda village, Thuggali Mandal, Kurnool District.
Their son M.Raju Nayak was aged about 15 years and studying X class in
Jonnageri Zilla Parishad High School. On the evening of 07-07-2008, after attending the school, the boy boarded an auto bearing registration no.AP16TW-5285 at Jonnageri village to go to his village Gundal Thanda.
On the way, when the auto reached near Jonnagiri Cheruvu turning, the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and lost control over it and thereby, the vehicle turned turtle
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 2 towards left side of the road, as a result, the deceased and other passengers in the auto received grievous injuries and while the deceased was shifted to Gooty Hospital, he died in the mid way. It is averred that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.
(b) The petitioners’ further case is that the deceased was a clever student and due to his sudden demise, the petitioners lost their beloved son and future bread-winner of the family. On all these pleas, the petitioners claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under different heads against respondents 1 to 3. The first respondent is the present owner of the auto and the third respondent is the original owner and the second respondent is the Insurance Company, with which the auto was insured by the date of accident.
3. The first respondent filed his counter and opposed the claim, mainly on the submission that though he was the original owner of the crime vehicle, he sold away the same on 04-04-2008, i.e., three months prior to the accident and he ceased to be the owner of the vehicle and hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. The second respondent filed counter and opposed the claim on the following pleas:
Firstly, the second respondent denied the entire case of the petitioners and urged to put them in strict-proof. Secondly, the second respondent denied the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased and the manner of occurrence of the accident and the petitioners’ plea of the fault of the auto driver. Regarding the manner of occurrence of accident, the second respondent pleaded that it came to know that all of a sudden, the auto went out of control and the driver applied sudden brakes and due to this, the auto turned aside and the passengers, who were in the auto themselves slipped and fell down and sustained injuries and one person by name Raju Nayak died. Thus, the second respondent pleaded that the driver of the auto was not responsible for the accident. Thirdly, the second respondent pleaded that driver had no valid driving licence to drive the auto, which is a transport vehicle. For driving such a vehicle, the driver must possess light motor vehicle transport driving licence as per
Motor Vehicle Rules, which the driver did not have. The owner entrusted
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 3 the vehicle to an unlicensed driver and in view of the violations of terms and conditions of the Policy, the second respondent is not liable for the claim of the petitioners. Fourthly, the second respondent contended that the seating capacity of the auto is four in all, i.e., driver + 3 passengers.
However, at the time of accident, more than 14 persons travelled in the auto. In view of the violations of terms and conditions of the Policy, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Fifthly, the second respondent contended that on the date of accident, the crime vehicle was under the control of one R.Chandra Naik, but as per the petition averments, the first respondent was the owner of the said auto. The
Insurance Company has nothing to do with either R.Chandra Naik or the first respondent, since the vehicle was insured by one M.Jayarani, who is the third respondent in this case and who is not the owner of the auto by the date of accident. The said R.Chandra Naik or the first respondent has no insurable interest with the second respondent/Insurance Company and therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.
Further, the driver of the auto by name S.Ahmed Hussain was not working under the insured (third respondent), but was working under R.Chandra
Naik, who has nothing to do with the Insurance Company. As there was no master and servant relationship between the insured (third respondent) and the driver of the auto, this Insurance Company is not liable for the claim. The said M.Jayarani has not informed about the change of her ownership to the Insurance Company, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, as there is no contract with the first respondent and no premium was collected from the first respondent.
Sixthly, the second respondent contended that as the vehicle is presently under the control of R.Chandra Naik, the petition is bad for non-joinder of present owner of the auto, hence, it is liable to be dismissed. Seventhly, the second respondent contended that the factum of filing of criminal case in respect of the insured vehicle was not informed to second respondent by the third respondent in collusion with the claimants, hence the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Eightly, the second respondent contended that inspite of the above contentions raised by it, if the Tribunal awards compensation to the petitioners as against the second respondent, a direction may be given to recover the same from the insured (third respondent). Finally, the second respondent contended
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 4 that the claim under various heads is exorbitant and has no basis and thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. The following issues are framed for trial.
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing registration no.AP16TW-5285, which resulted in the death of N.Raju Nayak?
2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?
4. To what relief?
6. During trial, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. RWs.1 and 2 are examined and
Exs.B1 to B7 and Exs.X1 & X2 are marked on behalf of second respondent. The first respondent did not adduce any evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners,
Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy and the learned Counsel for second respondent,
Sri T.C. Venkata Ramana.
8. ISSUE No.1:
(a) The occurrence of accident on 07-07-2008 at 4.30 p.m. near road turning of Jonnagiri Cheruvu on Pathikonda-Gooty road and involvement of crime vehicle, i.e., auto bearing registration no.AP16TW- 5285 and death of the boy namely Raju Nayak are not in dispute and they are confirmed by Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-charge sheet, Ex.A3-inquest report and Ex.A4-post-mortem examination report. Hence, the only point for consideration in this Issue is whether the auto driver namely S.Ahmed
Hussain is responsible for the accident or not? To prove the fault of the auto driver, the petitioners examined PW2-Boya Lakshmanna and filed
Exs.A1 and A2. Hence, the said evidence is perused.
(b) PW2 deposed that he is having agricultural land near
Jonnagiri Cheruvu turning on Gooty road and at the time of accident, he was present in his field and observed the crime vehicle, i.e., auto bearing registration no.AP16TW-5285 being driven by its driver in a rash and
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 5 negligent manner with a high speed coming from Jonnagiri village side and lost control and turned turtle on the left side of the road near Jonnagiri turning. This witness further deposed that in the resultant accident, Raju
Nayak, aged about 15 years and belonging to Gundal Thanda village received grievous injuries and died. PW2 asserted that the accident was occurred purely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.
He stated that he was examined by the police. In the cross examination, he stated that his land is towards West of the road and his father’s land is situated on the East of the road and the accident was occurred on the road adjacent to his father’s land. He further stated in the cross- examination that the distance between the accident spot and his land is ½ K.M. He denied the suggestion that he did not witness the accident and after hearing huge sound, he got up and saw the auto. He denied a further suggestion that in the connected case, he deposed as if 12 persons travelled in the auto and now he was deposing as if only three persons were travelling in the auto.
(c) The above is the evidence of PW2, who claims to have witnessed the accident and according to whom, the auto driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle when he was negotiating a curve at Jonnagiri Cheruvu and thereby, the vehicle turned turtle. It may be noted that PW2 is not cited as an eye- witness in Ex.A2-charge sheet. However, on that count alone, one person cannot be discarded as if he is not an eye-witness to the accident. From the tenor of cross-examination of PW2, it is established that PW2 and his father are having lands near the scene of offence. PW2 is having land to the West of the road, whereas his father is having land to the East of the road, as such, there is a possibility for PW2 to be present in his field and witness the accident. The time of accident being 4.30 p.m., there is a possibility for PW2 to be at his land and attending some agricultural work.
In fact, in the cross-examination, the suggestion given to PW2 is not as if the was not present in his land at the relevant time of accident, but it was suggested that he did not witness the manner of occurrence of accident and only after hearing the sound of the auto, he got up and saw the auto.
Therefore, considering all these, it can be held that PW2 is an eye- witness to the accident. He categorically states that the driver drove the vehicle at a high speed and lost control while negotiating a turning at
Jonnagiri Cheruvu road. There is no apparent enmity between PW2 and
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 6 the driver or other respondents. PW2 is in fact a third party and I see no reason to disbelieve his evidence. More over, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 gets corroboration from Ex.A2-charge sheet, wherein, the police, after investigation, found fault with the auto driver and charge-sheeted him for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304 (A) of I.P.C. Thus, the above oral and documentary evidence clearly establish the guilt of the auto driver.
Thus, this Issue is accordingly answered.
9. ISSUE No.2:
(a) It may be noted that the petitioners filed this O.P. against three respondents. Their plea is that M.Jayarani, who is the third respondent, is the original owner of auto bearing registration no.AP16TW- 5285 and she insured the same with the second respondent/Insurance
Company. While so, she sold the vehicle to Shaik Shavali, the first respondent and so, he is the owner of the vehicle by the date of accident.
On these pleas, the petitioners filed this O.P. against respondents 1 to 3.
While so, the contention of first respondent is that he is not concerned with the claim of the petitioners, since he sold the vehicle on 04-04-2008 itself, i.e., three months prior to the accident and he ceased to be the owner of the vehicle since then. Coming to the second respondent, its contention is that by the date of accident, the vehicle was under the control of
R.Chandra Naik, whereas, the petitioners showed the first respondent as the owner of the auto and the Insurance Company is not concerned with either the first respondent or R.Chandra Naik, because, the vehicle was insured by the third respondent namely M.Jayarani and she did not give any intimation to the Insurance Company about the transfer of the vehicle.
On this ground, while refuting its liability, the third respondent contended that the O.P. is bad for non-joinder of R.Chandra Naik as a necessary party. In the context of the above divergent pleadings, I perused the relevant evidence.
(b) As already stated, the petitioners arrayed the third respondent as the original owner –cum- insured of the crime vehicle and the first respondent as the owner of the vehicle by the date of accident.
Coming to Exs.B4 to B6, they are certified copies of petitions in O.P. 106 of 2010, 107 of 2010 and 108 of 2010 respectively filed by the petitioners,
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 7 who are the injured in the same accident. In those petitions, they arrayed
R.Chandra Naik as owner of the vehicle. Be that as it may, Ex.B2-R.C.
extract filed by the second respondent would show that M.Jayarani (third respondent) was the owner of vehicle from 01-12-2006 to 17-05-2008, whereas, Shaiksha Vali S.K. (first respondent) was the owner from 17-05-2008 onwards. The name of R.Chandra Naik is not shown as the owner of the auto. The accident in this case was occurred on 07-07-2008, which implies that Shaik Shavali/first respondent was the owner of vehicle by the date of accident. Respondents 1 and 3 are arrayed as parties in the present O.P. Merely because some other petitioners showed
R.Chandra Naik as owner of crime vehicle in their respective O.P.s, that cannot be taken into consideration in the present O.P. According to
Ex.B2, Jayarani was the owner of crime auto from 01-12-2006 to 17-05-2008 and thereafter, Shaiksha Vali was the owner of the said auto.
Both these persons are arrayed as respondents in the present O.P.
Hence, the question of this O.P. becoming bad for non-joinder of necessary parties does not arise. The further contention of the second respondent that the third respondent has not informed about the transfer of her ownership to the Insurance Company and therefore, its liability is ceased also cannot be accepted, for the reason that in the decision rendered in “United India Insurance Company Limited, Shimla -Vs- Tilak
Singh & others”1, Hon’ble Apex Court held that non-intimation of the factum of transfer of vehicle by its owner to the Insurance Company will not cease the liability of Insurance Company in respect of the claim of third parties. In the decision rendered in “United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Appellant -Vs- Rajvinder Kaur and others”2, cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana also gave a ruling similar to the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra. Thus, it is clear that this O.P. is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
This Issue is accordingly answered.
10. ISSUE No.3:
(a) The first aspect in this Issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? Since the petitioners lost their son Raju Nayak 1 AIR 2006 SC 1576 2 2011 ACJ 2472 (Punjab & Haryana)
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 8 in the resultant accident, they are, in principle, held entitled to compensation.
(b) The next aspect in this Issue is which of the respondents are liable to pay compensation?
(i) As can be seen from Ex.B2-R.C. extract, the third respondent was the original owner of the crime vehicle and she has insured the same with the second respondent. However, subsequently it appears, she sold the same to first respondent and with effect from 17-05-2008, the first respondent was shown as the owner of crime vehicle.
Though the first respondent denied his liability, on the plea that he sold the vehicle on 04-04-2008, there is no authenticated proof to this effect, except his contention. On the other hand, Exs.B2 and B3-R.C. and permit extracts show the first respondent as the owner of crime vehicle by the date of accident. Therefore, basing on the evidence on record, it can be held that the first respondent was the owner of crime vehicle by the date of accident. Since the accident was occurred due to fault of the driver of first respondent, the first respondent is vicariously liable for the fault of his driver. So-far-as the third respondent is concerned, since she ceased to be the owner of crime vehicle by the date of accident, she cannot be held responsible.
(ii) Coming to the liability of Insurance Company, Ex.B1-Policy copy filed by the second respondent, would show that the third respondent insured the crime vehicle with the second respondent for the period 26-02-2008 to 25-02-2009. The accident in this case was occurred on 07-07-2008, which implies that the Policy was in force by the date of accident. Inspite of coverage of Policy, Insurance Company denied its liability on the following grounds:
(1) Firstly, on the ground that the third respondent has not intimated about the transfer of ownership of vehicle to the second respondent and as there is no contract of insurance between the
Insurance Company on the one hand and either the first respondent or
R.Chandra Naik on the other hand, the second respondent is not liable for the claim of the petitioners. So-far-as this contention is concerned; the same was negatived in the light of the two following decisions mentioned in Issue No.2 supra.
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 9
“United India Insurance Company Limited , Shimla -Vs- Tilak
Singh & others”3
“United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Appellant -Vs- Rajvinder Kaur
and others”4
Hence, this contention cannot be accepted.
(2) Secondly, second respondent denied its liability on the contention that as per terms of Ex.B1-Policy, it would cover the risk of only three passengers, whereas four MVOPs are filed, claiming compensation in respect of the same accident and hence, it is not answerable to any of the claims. In support of its contention, second respondent filed Exs.B4 to
B6, which are certified copies of petitions in M.V.O.P. 106 of 2010, 107 of 2010 and 108 of 2010 respectively, which were filed by the petitioners, who were said to be injured in the same accident. Those claims were originally pending on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool and later, they were transferred to Principal District Court, Kurnool, to be tried along with the present O.P. Per contra, the submission of learned
Counsel for the petitioners is that the remaining three O.P.s were dismissed for default and therefore, the second respondent is liable to answer the present claim only. In this context, I perused the record.
Ex.B1 shows that a premium of Rs.945/- was paid to cover the risk of three passengers and one employee (driver under Workmen’s
Compensation Act). So, as contended by the learned Counsel for second respondent, it is liable to the extent of the risk of three passengers only.
However, record shows, four O.P.s are filed including the present one.
Further, the record shows that the remaining three O.P.s, i.e., O.P. 106 of 2010, 107 of 2010 and 108 of 20120, which were transferred to this Court were dismissed for default on 09-05-2012. So, as submitted by the learned Counsel for petitioners, at present, the present O.P. alone is pending and the second respondent is now liable for the present claim. If in case, the remaining O.P.s are revived on petition in future, the second respondent can raise its contention in those cases, which will be considered on merits.
3 AIR 2006 SC 1576 4 2011 ACJ 2472 (Punjab & Haryana)
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 10 (3) Thirdly, second respondent denied its liability on the main contention that the crime vehicle is a special category of vehicle, i.e., three wheeler and to drive such vehicle, its driver must possess driving licence specifying light motor vehicle transport (auto). However, the driver by name S.Ahmed Hussain, as per Ex.B7 = Ex.X2-driving licence extract, possessed driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (transport) and there is no specification in his driving licence as “auto” and therefore, he was not holding valid driving licence by the date of accident and for violation of terms of the Policy, the second respondent is not liable for the claim of the petitioners. In order to establish its contention, the second respondent examined RW2, who is the Junior Assistant in R.T.A., Kurnool and produced Ex.X2-driving licence extract of the driver S.Ahmed Hussain.
Thus, the contention of second respondent is that in Ex.B7 = Ex.X2, though it is mentioned that the driver had driving licence to drive light motor vehicle transport, there is no specific mention to the effect “auto” and hence, there is violation of terms of the Policy. Per contra, the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that “auto” is a transport vehicle and it comes under the category of “light motor vehicle” and as the driver possessed driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (transport), it should be deemed that he is entitled to drive auto also and in fact, RW2 admitted that the auto, which is weighing 725 Kgs, comes under “light motor vehicle” category and the driver, who possessed light motor vehicle (transport) driving licence, is competent to drive the auto and therefore, there is no violation of the driving licence and the second respondent cannot dis-own its liability. He relied upon the following decision.
“E. Rajeswari and others -Vs- T.S. Sekhar and another”5
In the above context, I perused the record and evidence.
(a) Ex.B7 = Ex.X2 would show that the driver S.Ahmed Hussain holds light motor vehicle (transport) driving licence from 22-01-1986 to 16-05-2011. RW2 admits that the auto, which is weighing 725 Kgs., is a “light motor vehicle”. However, the contention of the second respondent is that inspite of Ex.B7 = Ex.X2 depicting that the driver holds light motor vehicle (transport) driving licence by the date of accident, still he is not 5 2011 (1) ALD 48
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 11 competent to drive the auto, because it is a special category of vehicle, i.e., three-wheeler and there is no specific mentioning of ‘auto” on Ex.B7 =
Ex.X2. In the cited decision, the facts are that the driver possessed driving licence to drive light motor vehicles. The contention is that he cannot drive the transport vehicle with the said licence. In that context, our Hon’ble High Court in the above decision observed as follows:
“So far as the second aspect is concerned, the Tribunal held that the driving licence Ex.B1 was only for light motor vehicles and that the driver was not permitted to drive a transport vehicle. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The reason is that the connotation “light motor vehicle” is relevant, in the context of the size and make of the vehicle, and not the use, to which it is put. The expression “transport vehicle”, on the other hand, deals with the use and not the size of the vehicle. For instance, even a small vehicle, like autorickshaw can be treated as a transport vehicle, because of its use, whereas a big sedan or car can be used as private vehicle.
The LMV issued to a driver enables him to drive the vehicle of that category. It is immaterial whether such vehicle is being used as purely for private purposes, or as a transport vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was a light motor vehicle, and Ex.B1 is a LMV licence. Therefore, both the reasons assigned by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.”
In view of the above decision, the contention of second respondent cannot be accepted.
(b) For another reason also, the contention of second respondent cannot be accepted. In a decision rendered in “National Insurance Co.
Ltd., Petitioner -Vs- Swaran Singh and others, Respondents”6, Hon’ble
Supreme Court was dealing with an important issue as to whether the
Insurance Company can be automatically exonerated from its liability on the ground that there is a defect in the driving licence of the driver of vehicle, which met with an accident. In that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with different types of defences put-forth by the Insurance
Companies touching the driving licence issue, viz., 6AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 12
(a) Driving license produced by the driver or owner of the vehicle was a fake one.
(b) Driver did not have a licence whatsoever.
(c) Licence, although was granted to the concerned driver, but on expiry thereof, the same had not be renewed.
(d) Licence granted to the drivers being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of different class or description.
(e) The vehicle in question was driven by a person having a learner’s licence.
(c) So-far-as the situation, the driver holding driving licence for one type of vehicle and driving another type of vehicle and causing the accident is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para (84) of its judgment has observed thus:
“In each case on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.”
(d) So, the ratio in the above decision is that the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated for mere technical defect, i.e., driver holding licence for one class of vehicle and driving another class of vehicle and causing the accident, as in the present one. On the other hand, the duty is cast on the Tribunals to give a finding whether there is a nexus between the accident and lack of requisite driving licence, i.e., whether the accident was the direct result of lack of requisite driving licence by its driver or not?
Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court propounded the principle of fundamental breach in the course of deciding the liability or otherwise of Insurance
Company. Thus, following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 13
Court in Swaran Singh’s case, it is now to be seen whether the accident was the direct result of the lack of requisite driving licence by the driver?
(e) From the facts and evidence, it is clear that the driver S.Ahmed
Hussain drove the auto at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and while negotiating a turning at Jonnagiri Cheruvu, he lost control and thereby, the vehicle turned turtle. Admittedly, the driver possessed driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (transport). It is also an admitted fact that auto is a light motor vehicle. In the decision cited supra, our Hon’ble High Court held that the “light motor vehicle” takes within its definition both a transport and a non-transport vehicle.
So, from all these facts and circumstances, it appears that merely because there is no specification in the driving licence to the effect “auto”, that does not mean that the driver is not authorized to drive the auto.
Further, the facts would show that the accident was occurred purely because of high speed driving of the driver rather than his lack of requisite driving licence. It is not uncommon that some drivers have the tendency to drive the vehicles at high speed irrespective of the necessity. The present driver appears to be one of such drivers. In my considered view, the accident would have happened even though the offending driver possessed requisite driving licence because of his tendency to drive at high speed. Therefore, it can be said that the accident was not the direct result of lack of requisite driving licence by the driver and there is no fundamental breach of Policy conditions in the instant case. Hence, the
Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability.
(f) Now, the next point in this case is how much compensation is payable to the petitioners?
This is the case of death of a 15 years aged boy, who was studying
X class. The petitioners, who are his parents, lost not only their dearest son, but also their future bread-winner. The petitioners claimed
Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. Considering the facts and evidence, the compensation is fixed as follows:
(i) Following the decision delivered in “United India Insurance
Company Ltd., -Vs- Vallur Sailaja and others”7, the petitioners are awarded 72006 (2) Transfer and Accident Cases (TAC) 596 (A.P.)
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 14 a sum of Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs.2,500/- for the loss of estate.
(ii) In a fatal accident case, the main item of compensation will be the loss of earnings of the deceased or loss of dependency of his legal representatives. Generally, compensation under this head will be assessed through multiplier system basing on the age and income of the deceased. However, if the deceased happens to be a bachelor, like in the present case, the age of his mother has to be taken into consideration.
Now, coming to the earnings of the deceased, he was only a student studying X class and hence, by the date of his death, he was not earning any income. The petitioners, though claimed that the deceased was a clever student and had he alive, he would have got bright future, they did not place the academic record of the deceased. Hence, there is no other option except to fix notional income of the deceased, for evaluation of compensation. Accordingly, the notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.50/- per day, on the premise that had he alive, he would have earned a minimum of Rs.50/- per day. His annual income, which will serve the purpose as multiplicand, comes to Rs.18,000/- (50 x 30 x 12).
Now, a suitable multiplier has to be selected basing on the age of the second petitioner. Her age is mentioned as 36 years in EX.A3 and hence the said age is accepted. Following the table given in “Sarla Verma and
others, Appellants -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and another,
Respondents”8, a multiplier of “16” is selected for her age. Now, by multiplying the annual income of the deceased with “16”, we will arrive at the total earnings, which come to Rs.2,88,000/- (18000 x 16).
From this amount, 1/2 is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased by following the decision “United India Insurance Company
Limited -Vs- G.Satish Kumar etc.,”9and the balance amount of
Rs.1,44,000/- (2,88,000 – 1,44,000) is awarded to the petitioners as compensation under this head.
Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioners under different heads is detailed below.
82009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 92012 (3) ALT 71
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 15 (1) Funeral expenses .. Rs. 2,500=00 (2) Loss of estate .. Rs. 2,500=00 (3) Loss of future .. Rs.1,44 000=00 dependency ______________
TOTAL .. Rs.1,49,000=00
______________
Thus, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,49,000/-from respondents 1 and 2 and the rest of their claim is rejected.
This Issue is answered accordingly.
11. ISSUE No.3:
In the result, in view of the findings in Issue Nos.1 and 2, this petition is decreed as follows:
(i) This O.P. is decreed in favour of the petitioners and against respondents 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.1,49,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty nine thousand only) with proportionate costs and simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of O.P. till the date of realization.
(ii) This O.P. is dismissed as against the third respondent.
(iii) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount plus costs and interest within one month from the date of this order, failing which, execution can be taken out against them.
(iv) On such deposit or realization, the petitioners, being the parents of the deceased, shall equally apportion the compensation amount. They are permitted to withdraw Rs.15,000/- each plus costs and their balance amount shall be kept in two separate fixed deposits in their names in any Nationalized Bank for two years.
(v) Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by
me in open Court, this the 18 th day of June 2012.
CHAIRMAN, M.A.C. TRIBUNAL –CUM-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 16
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For petitioner:-
PW1: N. Kotta Nayak S/o Kamreddy Nayak, R/o Gunddal Thanda village, Thuggali Mandal,, Now R/o Gudur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District.
PW2: D. Boya Lakshmanna S/o Nellurappa, R/o Jonnagiri Village, Thuggali Mandal, Kurnool District.
For Respondent: -
RW1: K. Venkoba Rao S/o K. Narasinga Rao, Senior Assistant, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Kurnool
RW2: S. Mali Basha S/o S. Shalimiah, Junior Assistant, RTA Office, Kurnool.
Exhibits marked
For Petitioner:-
Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.46/2008 of Jonnagiri Police Station, Kurnool District, dated 07.07.2008.
Ex.A2: Certified copy of Charge sheet in Cr.No.46/2008 of Jonnagiri Police Station in CC No.276/2008 of Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Pathikonda.
Ex.A3: Certified copy of inquest report in Cr.No.46/2008 of Jonnagiri Police Station, Kurnool District.
Ex.A4: Certified copy of Post Mortem report in Cr.No.46/2008 of Jonnagiri Police Station, Kurnool District.
For Respondent:-
Ex.B1: Copy of Insurance Policy.
Ex.B2: R.C. extract of vehicle bearing No.AP16TW 5285.
Ex.B3: Permit extract of vehicle bearing No.AP16TW 5285.
Ex.B4: Certified copy of petition in M.V.O.P.106/2010.
Ex.B5: Certified copy of petition in M.V.O.P.107/2010.
Ex.B6: Certified copy of petition in M.V.O.P.108/2010.
Ex.B7: Driving licence extract of S. Ahamed Hussain.
PDJ MVOP 326 of 2010 17
Ex.X1: Authorization Letter dated 26.11.2011 issued by the RTA, Kurnool. Ex.X2: Driving licence extract of S. Ahamed Hussain issued by the RTA, Kurnool.
CHAIRMAN, M.A.C. TRIBUNAL –CUM-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL