APHC010222702005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the Ninth Day of May Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3037 of 2005 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirupathi ...Appellant and K.Kannamma and 5 others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. Amancharla Satish Babu Counsel for the respondents: 1. J. Ugranarasimha The Court made the following Judgment: This appeal is filed by the insurance company / respondent No.2 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 12.08.2005, allowing the claim in M.V.O.P No.144 of 2002 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, awarding compensation of Rs.2,45,624/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of petition till the date of payment with costs. 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3037 of 2005 2. The case of the claimants, in brief, is as follows: On 08.06.2001, K.Raghupathi (in short ‘the deceased’) boarded tractor bearing NO. AP 03 V 3096 attached to trailer bearing No. AP 03 V 2839, for loading and unloading cement bricks. When the tractor with load of cement stones, reached near Karakambadi Mangalam road, the driver of the tractor trailer (in short ‘T & T’) drove in rash and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased was thrown out from the trailer on the road side and the wheels of the trailer ran over him. He sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately, he was shifted by the driver and K.Nagamani, to SVRR Hospital, on the advice of the doctors, the deceased was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore, for better treatment and he was admitted on 14.06.2001. However, on 15.06.2001, at about 12.15 am, he succumbed to injuries. The police of Alipiri Police Station registered a case in crime No.81 of 2001 for the offence under Section 304 (a) and 201 IPC and filed charge sheet in CC No.517 of 2001 against the driver of the T & T and the same is pending before the Court of IIII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati. The deceased, aged about 35 years, used to work as laborer and earn Rs.10/- per day. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased, lost bread earner. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the tractor and trailer. The respondent No.2 is the insurer of the T & T. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 03. The claim was resisted by both the respondents by filing separate counters. The respondent No.1 contended that the amount of compensation claim is excessive and that the mode of accident is denied. It is further stated that the T & T is insured with the respondent No.2, further requested to dismiss the petition. 04. The respondent No.2 denied the liability and stated that the claim is excessive. It is further stated that risk of coolie is not covered in the policy issued by it and that the vehicles were insured for commercial purpose and 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3037 of 2005 not for carrying passengers. It is also contended that the driver had no valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle and also that the name of the driver in the F.I.R., is not tallying with the name in the charge sheet and that the accident register shows that the deceased sustained injuries due to the fall from the wall at his house on 08.06.2001 and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 05. On behalf of the claimants, the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, A.Nagaraja was examined as PW2 and R. Balaji was examined as PW3 and Ex.A1(Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.81 of 2001 of Alipiri Police Station), Ex.A2 (Certified copy of charge sheet in CC No.517 of 2001 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati), Ex.A3 (Certified copy of inquest report), Ex.A4 (Certified copy of post mortem certificate), Ex.A5 (Bunch of medical bills) , Ex.A6 (Bail application in Crl.M.P.No.1813 of 2001 in Cr.No.81 of 2001 of Alipiri Police Station) and Ex.A7 (Copy of Accident Register extract) were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the respondent No.1 was examined as RW1, CH.Padmaja Devi was examined as RW2, P.Srinivasulu was examined as RW3 and Dr.Gnana Prasoona was examined as RW4 and Ex.B1 (Tractor maintenance registers (3)), Ex.B2 (Driving Licence extract of S.Tukaram), Ex.B3 (Computation of premium work sheet), Ex.B4 (Xerox copy of policy produced by R2) and Ex.B5 (Xerox copy of Accident Register) were marked for the respondent. Ex.A4 is same as Ex. B5. 06. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the deceased died of the injuries suffered in the motor vehicle accident and fastened-liability against both the respondents. 07. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed by the respondent No.2 firstly contending that the Tribunal erred in holding, basing on presumptions and assumptions, that the accident occurred due to fall from the T & T, whereas the accident registers and the evidence of RW2 clearly indicate that the accident was caused due to fall of a wall on him at his house and 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3037 of 2005 moreover, the crime was registered a week after the alleged incident. Secondly, the appellant contended that the even if the accident occurred in the manner stated by the claimants, the policy does not cover the coolie and therefore the insurer is not liable to pay compensation and finally, that the amount of award and the rate of interest are excessive and not supported by the evidence. 08. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that RW1, an independent witness, recorded the statement of the deceased, when he was conscious, that he received injury by fall from his wall and therefore any amount of investigation subsequently done is only to support the claim. He further submitted that the owner of the T & T also submitted the version of the insurance company. Therefore, the Tribunal erroneously allowed the claim. 09. On the other hand, the respondents / claimants submitted that the Tribunal had exhaustively dealt with the evidence of all the witnesses and the documents filed to come to appropriate findings that the accident occurred in the manner claimed by the claimants. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to all the observations of the Tribunal as to how it was falsely got recorded in the Accident Register, while the deceased sustained injury due to motor vehicle accident. However, he submitted that the amount of compensation is far below the amount claimed and there is nothing to reduce the quantum of compensation. 10. The main contention is regarding the cause of death and the manner of the incident due to which the deceased died. While concurring with the view of the Tribunal, to avoid repetition, it is pertinent to record the essence of the observations of the Tribunal by thoroughly churning all the relevant evidence about the cause of the incident in which the injuries were received. a) The evidence of PW1 (the 1st petitioner), about the manner of and involvement of the vehicle in the accident as pleaded by the claimants is held 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3037 of 2005 to be not helpful as she is not an eye witness to the incident. The Tribunal believed the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who were examined as eye witnesses being coolies coengaged with the deceased for loading and unloading the bricks, observing that they withstood the lengthy cross examination by the 1st and 2nd respondents denying their (PWs 2 & 3 and the deceased) engaged as coolies and Sankar Tukaram driving the tractor with trailer and the deceased who was sitting on the bricks being thrown out due to rash and negligent driving the driver and suggesting to the witnesses that the deceased died due to fall of a wall of his house. Since not an eye witness, the Tribunal did not accept the evidence of RW1 ( owner of T&T ) with regard to denial of engaging the deceased and PWs 2 and 3 as coolies, the involvement of his vehicles in the accident and attributing the death of the deceased to lack of Oxygen as a wall of his house fell on him. b) The Tribunal believed the contention of the claimants that the father of the 1st respondent who was a contractor was using these vehicles for his work though the vehicles were registered in the name of the 1st respondent, since the 1st respondent (RW1) failed to give the name of the driver in spite of suggesting that these vehicles were driven by Sankar at the time of the accident. For the same reason, with regard to Sankar, the name of the driver in the F.I.R. and Sankar Tukaram, in the charge sheet, the tribunal noted that there is reason to believe that Sankar Tukaram alias Sankar was the driver at the time of the accident. The Tribunal brushed aside the evidence of RW1 stating that he had no personal knowledge of the fall of wall and resultant injuries to the deceased and that he had falsely denied involvement of his T&T, as can be understood from the evidence in EX.A6, i.e., the bail application filed by Sankar @ Shankar Tukaram as the driver of the subject matter T&T, through the same advocate, Sri. A. Vijayakumar, who is appearing for the 1st respondent (RW1). 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3037 of 2005 c) The evidence of RW2, Senior Assistant in R.T.O., Tirupati who spoke about licence of Tukaram s/o Vhengaiah was held to be of no use about the fall of wall as he is not an eye witness and his evidence based on the Accident Register is not direct evidence. d) The Tribunal observed that the wound certificate shows one Sankar who accompanied the injured to S.V.R.R.Hospital, Tirupati, stated to the doctor that the deceased had sustained injuries due to fall of a wall and that this evidence has to be read together with the evidence of RW4, C.M.O., who made the endorsement of the history of the wound and the name of Sankar. The tribunal further noted an important observation that though RW4 deposed that the injured himself had stated the history of the wound, she had not recorded that the injured was conscious, if really he was so. Since the driver brought the injured, the driver must have given the information to RW4. e) It was further held by the Tribunal that if really the incident happened at the house of the deceased, his wife would have accompanied him and her name would have been recorded and that since Sankar was the driver, he had immediately brought him to the hospital, and described himself as brother of the injured (noted as brother within brackets) in the register, but there was no proof that he is the brother and on the other hand, the claimants had stated that Sankar was not the brother of the deceased. When the criminal case was registered and criminal proceedings were initiated against Sankar Tukaram in connection with the pleaded case, much weight cannot be given to hearsay evidence in the Accident Register about the manner of the incident. f) Of course, the incident was on 08.06.2001 and he was admitted in the hospital on that day, but the F.I.R. was registered on 15.06.2001, on a complaint against the driver of T&T after his death on that day. Recording that the claimants were the rustic and illiterate persons in a remote village and it is not uncommon that a owner or a driver of a vehicle would try to compromise 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3037 of 2005 the case after an accident to avoid criminal liability, it was held that it would result in delay in complaining to the police. g) After noting that as per Ex.A3 (inquest report), the Panchayatdars had opined that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of T & T, the Tribunal examined the injuries, both external and internal, as per Ex.A4 (certified copy of post-mortem certificate) which are as follows: External wounds : i. Sutured wound of 23 cms in length and 35 sutures on left temeral and frontal area (of semicircular shape). ii. A sutural wound of 4 cms in length with 3 sutures on middle of scalp 2 cms away from wound No.1 to the right side. iii. Graze abrasion of 45 x 7 cms on back of left leg downwards 8 cms away from left angle. iv. A laceration of 12 x 5 cms bone deep on outer side of left ankle v. An abrasion of 12 x 5 cms on outer side of left foot. Internal wounds: i. 3 burn holes present on frontal bone of 1 cms radius in size each, 2 cms apart with each other. ii. Semi circular surgical cutting of frontal bone of 16 cms in length. iii. Surgical cutting of 7 cms in length on left temporal bone. iv. Sutured diameter of 12 cms on left temporal area with 20 sutures. v. Left frontal lobe of brain absent with surgical intervention. h) Following the principle that as the M. V. Act is a beneficial legislation, the approach of the Tribunal must be liberal in evaluating the evidence leaning in favour of the victim when there are two views possible, it was concluded that a cumulative reading of all the above evidence proved the pleaded case of the claimants. 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3037 of 2005 Thus, the appellant’s contention in this regard is unsustainable and consequently the appeal has no merit on this point. 11. Coming to the next contention that the policy did not cover liability to a coolie, it was rightly held by the Tribunal that the insurance company insured the vehicles for commercial purpose and it was not the contention of the company that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, and since the evidence shows that he was travelling for loading and unloading purpose, the liability covered the risk of coolie. The finding does not require interference. 12. Regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, as against a claim of Rs.4,25,000/-, assessing the annual earnings of the deceased at Rs.1,800/-, 1/3rd was deducted and his annual contribution to the family @ Rs.1,200/- multiplied by 16 (multiplier applicable to person of age group of 31 – 35), an amount of Rs.1,92,000/- for loss of future earnings; Rs.8,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium ( to the wife ); Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection; and Rs.18,624/- for medical expenses basing the evidence under Ex.A5 (medical bills), making a total of Rs.2,45,624/- was awarded. No appeal or cross objection has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement the amount of compensation. No part of the amount granted under different heads is excessive. 13. The rate of interest is usually granted basing on the rate prevailing the relevant period in a nationalised bank as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The accident happened in the year 2001 and the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., and the appellant says that it ought to be 6%, but no evidence was placed that it was the then prevailing rate. At the relevant period, the rate granted by the Tribunal is not on high side. 14. For all the above reasons, there is no reason to interfere with the award impugned in this appeal. 9 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3037 of 2005 15. In the result, the appeal in dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date : 09.05.2025 RSD/RAR 10 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3037 of 2005 287 The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3037 of 2005 Date: 09.05.2025 RSD/RAR