APHC011552592012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 20/2012 Between: B V Srinivasulu ...APPELLANT AND P Krishnappa and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA The Court made the following: 2 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 JUDGMENT: Questioning the excessive compensation awarded, the owner of the offending vehicle preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 16.11.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2010. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the claimants before the Claims Tribunal. 3. Heard arguments of Sri Chethan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri K.Mahadeva, the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The following facts are required to be noticed: 3 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 Sri P.Kumar is the victim in a road accident that took place on 07.03.2010 at about 3:50 A.M. in front of Srirama Enterprises along Madanapalle – Punganur road. The offending vehicle was a tractor bearing registration No.AP-26-D-9664 and a trailer bearing registration No.AP-26-D-9665 owned by the appellant - Sri B.V.Srinivasulu. There was no insurance cover for the offending vehicle. The deceased was a boy aged 13 years. On his death his father and mother filed M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2010 seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Regarding the subject matter accident Madanapalle I Town Police registered F.I.R. as per Ex.A.1. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid as against the driver of the offending vehicle for negligent driving and also the owner of the offending vehicle for not insuring the vehicle and that is evidenced by Ex.A.4-charge sheet. The vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicles Inspector who certified that the alleged accident was not out of any mechanical defect as evidenced by Ex.A.5. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to inquest as per Ex.A.2 and was subjected to autopsy as per Ex.A.3. 4 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 The parents of the deceased raised their claim contending that on 07.03.2010 at about 3:50 A.M. the deceased boy along with others were pedestrians and the tractor and trailer being driven by its driver rashly or negligently and at high speed dashed the boy and ran over him and caused his spot death. In such circumstances, they prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The sole respondent before the Claims Tribunal was the owner of the offending vehicle and he filed a counter resisting the claim. The substance of defence taken up there was that the deceased was not a pedestrian and he was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No.AP-16-R-3349 and at the material point of time he was sleeping in the trailer attached to the said tractor and since the door of the trailer was not properly locked the deceased fell down and died and the narration made in the claim petition is false and incorrect. He pleaded that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation since they failed to implead the owner and driver of the other tractor bearing No.AP-16-R-3349 and sought dismissal of the claim. 5 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 5. The learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle framed the following issues for consideration: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.AP-26-D-9664 involved resulting to the death of the deceased by name Pothularaju Kumar? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount 3) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent therein, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were produced in evidence. 7. After considering the entire evidence on record and the contentions raised on both sides, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the version given by the claimants was correct and was proved and the version ventilated by the owner of the offending vehicle was not proved. It stated that the death of the 6 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 boy was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of tractor bearing registration No.AP-26-D-9664 with trailer bearing registration No.AP-26-D-9665. 8. It considered the evidence and quantified the compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.2,10,000/- and towards funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-. Thus, it granted Rs.2,12,000/- as compensation. Citing the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh1, the Claims Tribunal held that though the claim for compensation was Rs.2,00,000/- in the opinion of the Tribunal just compensation was Rs.2,12,000/- and the ruling permitted the Claims Tribunal to grant more compensation than what was claimed in the claim petition. By order dated 16.11.2011 it allowed the claim in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is allowed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent awarding compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs twelve thousand only) together with costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The respondent is directed to 1 2003 ACJ 12 7 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 deposit the entire amount within one month from the date of award. Out of the compensation granted, the first petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.75,000/- and the 2nd petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,37,000/-. Out of the compensation granted, the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw 50% of their share together with their share of costs and interest at the first instance and this Tribunal orders that the remaining amount shall be invested by way of fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of five years and the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to receive the said amount after expiry of the said period along with accrued interest. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- as per Rule 15 of Advocate Fee Rules, 2010. However, this Tribunal orders that the award shall become executable only on payment of deficit court fee.” 9. Assailing the said award, the owner of the offending vehicle urged the following grounds in the memorandum of grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Court below is grossly illegal and contrary to law and weight of evidence. 2. The learned Tribunal had not properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence relied by the appellant herein. 8 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 3. The learned Tribunal ought to have properly considered the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant/respondent herein. 4. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the accident is not due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant herein. 5. The Court below ought to have seen that the original owner is not impleaded as party respondents in the O.P., hence the said O.P. is not maintainable in the eye of law. 6. The Court below had granted excessive and exorbitant amount without application of mind. 7. The Court below ought to have seen that petitioners in the O.P. have not proved their case properly by relying on oral and documentary evidence.” 10. Learned counsel for the appellant endeavoured to substantiate the grounds urged in the appeal. 11. As against it, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that what was held by the Claims Tribunal was right on facts and law and no interference is required in this appeal. 12. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: 9 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 “Whether the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal suffers from errors of fact or law requiring any interference?” POINT: 13. The substance of the contention of the appellant is that the driver of the offending tractor was not rash or negligent and the accident and death of the victim cannot be attributed to the tractor owned by the appellant and the Claims Tribunal failed to consider oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant. 14. It has to be recorded here itself that before the Claims Tribunal this appellant as respondent did not adduce any documentary evidence. Therefore, the contention urged in the grounds of memorandum of appeal that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the documentary evidence is factually incorrect. 15. Mother of the deceased testified as PW.1. Though she deposed all the facts that are raised in the claim petition it was in 10 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 her cross-examination she disclosed that she did not witness the subject matter accident. Learned Claims Tribunal, in such circumstances, recorded that such evidence of PW.1 could not help it in deciding the actual cause of accident and death. 16. PW.2 is one of the witnesses to the subject matter accident and was also one who suffered injuries in the same accident. According to his evidence, while they were on foot, the offending tractor and trailer came and dashed them and as its wheel ran over the boy it led to spot death. He was subjected to cross- examination and the version taken up by the owner of the offending vehicle was put to him and he denied it as false. Learned Claims Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.2 and then it also considered the investigative output of the State police as evidenced by Exs.A.1 and A.4 wherein the guilty finger was raised against the driver and owner of the offending tractor. In such circumstances the Claims Tribunal agreed with the version pleaded and proved by the claimants. 17. To prove the version raised on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle, there was evidence of RW.1 and RW.2. As 11 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 one would notice, RW.1 gave his evidence as if he witnessed the incident, but in the cross-examination he conceded, stating that he was not a witness to the incident and his knowledge was only out of what he heard from others. It is well known that any judicial forum could decide a fact based on admissible evidence and not evidence which was hearsay. Learned Claims Tribunal properly analysed the evidence and stated that evidence of RW.1 could not be considered. 18. RW.2 gave all the details of the incident in his examination- in-chief. However, in his cross-examination he admitted various aspects and stated his ignorance about what was mentioned in the examination-in-chief and finally his admissions were of such nature that the Claims Tribunal had to conclude that he was not a reliable witness. 19. In the context of the above discussion, the repeated contention of the appellant that the Claims Tribunal failed to consider evidence properly cannot stand to reason. There is absolutely no merit in such contention. The approach of the 12 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 Claims Tribunal has to be approved as correct and the reasons furnished by it shall be approved. 20. The other contention raised is about non-joinder of necessary parties. Since the material on record conclusively showed that the other tractor bearing registration No.AP-16-R- 3349 and its trailer were no way responsible for the incident, the question of non-joinder of owner and driver of that tractor has no bearing. Therefore, this contention of the appellant has to be negatived. 21. The final submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount granted by the Claims Tribunal is excessive. This Court finds no merit in it. In fact, the Claims Tribunal granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses though in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2 it ought to have granted Rs.15,000/-. In fact, nothing was granted by the Claims Tribunal towards loss of estate which could 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 13 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 normally be fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Despite all that, since the claimants were not aggrieved by the award impugned in this appeal, this Court is not inclined to modify the compensation awarded. On facts one could say that what was awarded was just compensation and it was not exorbitant. Therefore, no interference is required. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, the point is answered against the appellant. 23. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. The award dated 16.11.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2010 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 30.01.2025 Ivd 14 Dr. VRKS, J M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR M.A.C.M.A.No.20 of 2012 Date: 30.01.2025 Ivd