[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Banothu Gopa vs Ch.Ramulu on 10 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1773 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants
aggrieved by the order, dated 29.01.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1128
of 2007 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
District Judge, Khammam (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).
2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the
parents, brother and sisters of deceased Banothu Srinu, filed a petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of the death of the
deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.12.2005. It
is stated by the petitioners that on 22.12.2005 evening, one Tractor
along with Trailer bearing No.AP-04-B-7023/7024 came to Sunkara
Banjara Village in order to separate paddy grains from paddy crop in
the fields. During that time, as the tyres of the Tractor and Trailer
were less aired, the driver of the Tractor engaged the deceased to
accompany him to Air-filling station and also for holding the Trailer
tyres. As such, the deceased took the driver of the Tractor to
Sujathanagar Village and after filling Air in the tyres of the Tractor-
2
Trailer and while returning to Sunkara Banjara Village at 17.00 hours,
at that time, when the Tractor reached a culvert bridge situated
between Sujathanagar and Seetampeta Village, the driver of the said
Tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed
and lost control over the said Tractor and hit the culvert bridge. As a
result, the Tractor fell into the water and the deceased fell underneath
the Tractor. Later, some villagers took the deceased from underneath
of the Tractor and shifted to Dr.Nagaraju Hospital, Kothagudem and
while undergoing treatment, the deceased died on the very same day
at 19.00 hours.
4. Based on a complaint given by brother of the deceased, Police of
Kothagudem Police Station registered a case in Crime No.186 of 2005
under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of Tractor-Trailer bearing
No.AP-04-B-7023/7024.
5. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged about
23 years and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month by doing Coolie and
agricultural works. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the
petitioners have lost their source of income and other amenities and
hence filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-
against respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of
Tractor-Trailer bearing Nos.AP-04-B-7023/7024.
3
6. Respondent No.1/owner of Tractor-Trailer remained ex parte.
7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying
the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of
accident, age, income, health condition of the deceased and contended
that the driver of Tractor-Trailer do not possess valid driving license to
drive the vehicle and valid road permit to ply as on the date of alleged
accident and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant
and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
8. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned
Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-
i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of the accident vehicle Tractor-Trailer bearing Nos.
AP-04-B-7023/7024 by its driver?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any
compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the
respondents?
iii) To what relief? 9. In order to substantiate their case, on behalf of the
appellants/petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4
were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company,
R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy was marked.
4
10. After considering the entire evidence available on record, the
learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding
compensation of Rs.1,89,200/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by
respondent No.1 alone. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against
respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The Tribunal also dismissed the
claim of petitioner Nos.3 to 6 on the ground that they are not
dependent on the income of the deceased. Aggrieved by the said
findings, the claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants as
stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal ought to
have made 2nd respondent also liable to pay compensation along with
respondent No.1 as respondent No.2 did not adduce any contra
evidence to prove that the deceased was travelling negligently by
sitting behind the tractor and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal
directing the 2nd respondent to pay compensation along with
respondent No.1. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied
on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
V.Renganathan and another v. Branch Manager, United India
Insurance Company Limited and another 1 and Anu Bhanvara
and others v. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited
1
2023 ACJ 623
5
and others 2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court adopted the principle of
Pay and Recovery in case of gratuitous passengers travelling in a
goods vehicle which was duly insured. Learned counsel further
contended that appellant Nos.3 to 6 are also dependents on the
deceased. Learned counsel also contended that the multiplier applied
by the Tribunal is incorrect and sought to enhance the compensation.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal had
rightly exempted Insurance Company in paying compensation as the
insurance policy issued in the favour of 1st respondent do not cover the
risk of the persons travelling in the Tractor and that finding do not
require any further interference by this Court.
POINT:-
13. Since there is no dispute about the occurrence of accident and
death of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to delve into the said
aspects. The points that are to be decided in the present Appeal are
whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation along
with respondent No.1/owner of Tractor-Trailer? Whether the appellant
Nos.3 to 6 are entitled for compensation? and Whether the appellants
are entitled for any enhancement of compensation?
2
(2020)20 SCC 632
6
14. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in
V.Renganathan‘s case (supra 1), the case of the claimants therein is
that the deceased was travelling on the Tractor by sitting on the
Mudguard and the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to the observations
made in the case of Shivaraj v. Rajendra 3 had partly allowed the
Appeal directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation
amount at first instance and granted liberty to recover the same from
the owner of the Tractor. Learned counsel also submits that in IFFCO
TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited‘s case (supra 2), the
Hon’ble Apex Court invoked the principle of pay and recovery even in
case of gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.
15. In the instant case, the deceased travelled on the
plank/Mudguard of the crime tractor in order to accompany the driver
to get through Air filling station. Hence, he can be termed as
gratuitous passenger. Further, a perusal of Ex.B1/Insurance policy
shows that the alleged Tractor-Trailer is having valid insurance which
was in force as on the date of accident and it can also be seen that
some amount of third party premium was paid to the alleged Tractor-
Trailer. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company cannot be
absolved of its liability in paying the compensation to the appellants.
3
(2018) 10 SCC 432
7
16. Hence, this Court by relying upon the above referred decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, deems it fit and proper to adopt the
principle of pay and recovery directing the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company to pay the compensation at the first instance and later
recover the same from respondent No.1/owner of the crime vehicle.
17. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned
Tribunal, in the absence of income proof and considering the physical
fitness of the deceased, fixed his earnings @ Rs.1,800/- per month
which comes to Rs.21,600/- per annum. Since there is no plea taken
by the appellants in the grounds of Appeal with regard to increase in
notional monthly income of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the same.
18. As far as multiplier is concerned, the learned Tribunal had
wrongly taken the multiplier ’13’. The age of the deceased is 22 years
as per PME report. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier is ’18’ as per
the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4. As per
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
others 5, if future prospects at 40% is added to the annual income, the
net annual income comes to Rs.30,240/- (Rs.21,600/- + 8,640/-). If
the said amount is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier ’18’, the
total compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ would be
4
(2009)6 SCC 121
5
2017 ACJ 2700
8
Rs.5,44,320/-. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% has to
be deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.2,72,160/-
19. In addition, the appellants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards
funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate, appellant
Nos.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased are entitled to
Rs.44,000/- each towards parental consortium, appellant Nos.3 to 6,
who are the brother and sisters of the deceased and are minors and
dependents on the deceased are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each towards
filial consortium. In total, the appellants are entitled to compensation
of Rs.5,81,160/-. Out of the said amount, appellant Nos.1 and 2 are
entitled to Rs.3,81,160/- and appellant Nos.3 to 6 are entitled to
Rs.50,000/- each.
20. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,89,200/- to Rs.5,81,160/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the said compensation
at first instance and then recover the same from respondent No.1
(owner of the crime vehicle). The time to deposit the said amount is
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On
such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw their apportioned
amount, without furnishing any security. However, the appellants are
9
directed to pay the deficit Court-fee on the enhanced compensation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 10.07.2025
ssp
[ad_2]
Source link