Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
K. Munilakshmi vs Andhra Pradesh Road Transport … on 2 May, 2025
THE HONOURABLE STI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MACMA Nos.2009 and 1293 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are arising out of the same case in MVOP
No.179 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District
Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
learned MACT’). The claimants in the case feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded at
Rs.15,94,000/- as against their claim made for Rs.20,00,000/- for
the death of one Sri K. Munaswamy in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 28.09.2012, filed MACMA No.2009 of 2018.
2. The 3rd respondent before the learned MACT, the Insurance
Company with which the offending vehicle was insured, filed
MACMA No.1293 of 2018 questioning both the liability and the
quantum of compensation.
3. The parties are hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimants’ and
‘the respondents’ as per their status before the learned MACT.
4. The 1st respondent is the APSRTC; the 2nd respondent is
the owner of the bus bearing registration No. AP 03 Y 8728
2
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’); and the 3rd
respondent is the Insurance Company with which the 2nd
respondent’s bus was insured.
Case of the Claimants:
5. One Sri K. Munaswamy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
deceased’), is the husband of the 1st claimant, father of claimant
Nos.2 and 3, and son of the 4th claimant. On the fateful day i.e., on
28.09.2012 at about 12:00 noon, while the diseased was riding his
motorcycle bearing registration No. TN 18 L 3800 near Aditi
Spinning Mill on the Srikalahasthi-Pitchathur Main road, within the
limits of KVB Puram Police Station, the offending vehicle came in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle,
causing instantaneous death of the deceased. A case in Crime
No.24/2012 was registered against the driver of the offending
vehicle for the offences under sections 304-A and 279 of the India
Penal Code, 1860, and charge sheet was subsequently filed before
the competent Court.
6. Further case of the claimants is that, the diseased was hale
and healthy, aged about 40 years, and was working as a Welder.
He had previously worked for Larsen & Turbo Limited, Chennai,
3
and other reputed companies. He was earning a monthly salary of
Rs.12,000/-. He was also owning Acs.3.00 of agricultural land in his
native village, from which he earned approximately Rs.50,000/- per
annum through agricultural operations. The claimants, being the
legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, lost all forms of
support, therefore entitled for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
7. Common defences of the respondents:
i. The claimants are put to strict proof of all the allegations
made, including the occurrence of the accident, negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle, and the death of the diseased as a
result of the said accident.
ii. The negligence of the deceased in riding the motor cycle
cannot be ignored.
iii. The claimants shall prove the age, occupation, and income of
the diseased from the welding work as well as agriculture, and the
actual loss of income suffered by them.
8. Specific case of the 1st respondent-APSRTC:
The case of the 1st respondent-APSRTC is that the offending
vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent-Insurance
4Company. Therefore, the 1st respondent-APSRTC is not liable to
pay any compensation.
9. Specific case of the 2nd respondent-Owner of the
offending vehicle:
i. The driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
ii. A valid insurance policy was in force and the premium was
duly paid by the 2nd respondent under IMT – 44.
iii. The 2nd respondent is not liable to be pay any
compensation.
10. Specific case of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company:
i. There is no privity of contract between the 3rd respondent-
Insurance Company and the 1st respondent-APSRTC.
ii. The hiring of the vehicle is not proper.
iii. The offending vehicle was under the control of the 1st
respondent-APSRTC.
iv. The 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.
5
11. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were
settled for trial by the learned MACT:
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of rider of APSRTC hire bus bearing No.
AP 03 Y 8728 of respondents 1 & 2 on 28.09.2012 and
whether K. Munaswamy who was proceeding on a motor
cycle bearing No. TN 18 L 3800 died as a result of injuries
sustained in the accident?
2. What was the age and income of the deceased on
the date of his death?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation and if so to what amount and from whom?
4. To what relief?
12. Evidence before the learned MACT:
Particulars Description Remarks
Oral evidence P.W.1: M. Munilakshmi Wife of the
deceased.
P.W.2: K. Sudhakar Eye witness
P.W.3: B. Dilli Proprietor of Balu
Fabricators
Documentary Ex.A1:CC of FIR
evidence
Ex.A2:CC of Charge Sheet
On behalf of the
Ex.A3:CC of Inquest Report petitioners.
Ex.A4:CC of PM Certificate
6
Ex.A5:MVI Report
Ex.A6:CC of Form-54
Ex.A7:Salary Certificate
Ex.A8:Ration card with
translation copy from Tamil
to English
Ex.A9:Certificates issued by
Petron Engineering
Construction Limited
Ex.A10:Certificates issued
by Larsen & Turbo Limited
Ex.A.11:Welder
Qualification certificates
Ex.A.12:Certificate issued
by Serck Services
International with Welder
Identity Card
Ex.A.13:Certificate issued
by ALBIS Engineering
Company
Ex.A14:Welder Qualification
Card issued by Stewarts &
Lloyds of (1) Limited
Ex.A15:Identity Card issued
by Stewarts & Lloyds of (1)
Limited
Ex.A16:Identity Card issued
by Padma Fabricators
Ex.A17:Identity Card issued
by Madras Refineries
7
Limited
Ex.A18:Photocopy of
Pattadar Pass Book
Ex.A19:Identity Card issued
by Employees State
Insurance Corporation
Ex.A20:1-B Namoona
(ROR)
Ex.A21:Copy of No.3
adangal
Ex.A22:Passport of the
deceased
Ex.B1:Hire agreement On behalf of the
1st respondent-
APSRTC
13. Findings of the learned MACT:
i. With the evidence of PW2 (an eye witness) and the
documentary evidence such as the FIR, charge sheet, and other
supporting records, the negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle is believed.
ii. Based on the evidence of PW3 and the documents produced
by the claimants, the age of the deceased is 40 years, monthly
income is Rs.12,000/-, if deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenditure, Rs.96,000/- per annum is the contribution to the
family. Multiplier of 14 is applicable.
8
iii. Claimants entitlement is at Rs.13,44,000/- under the head of
‘loss of dependency’.
iv. Claimants are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium to the 1st claimant, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses, and Rs.1,00,000/- to claimant Nos.2 and 3 under the
head of loss of love and affection. In total, the compensation
awarded was Rs.15,94,000/-.
14 Arguments in the appeals:
a. On behalf of the claimants: i. The learned MACT erred in ignoring the agricultural income
of the deceased while assessing the compensation.
Ii. The learned MACT failed to add future prospects to the
monthly income taken at Rs.12,000/-.
Iii. The compensation awarded is meagre and inadequate.
b. On behalf of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company:
i. There is no proper basis for accepting the income of the
deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month.
ii. The compensation awarded is on the higher side.
9iii. The negligence of the diseased is ignored, and the liability
ought to have been apportioned between the vehicles involved in
the accident.
iv. The quantification of compensation is not in accordance with
the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
others1.
15. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the
arguments advance by both sides.
16. The points that arise for determination in these appeals are:
1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 28.09.2012
has occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the driver
of the offending vehicle, or whether there was any
contributory negligence on the part of the diseased?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what quantum, and what is the
extent of liability of the 1st respondent-APSRTC and the
3rd respondent-Insurance Company.
3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated
01.11.2017 passed by the learned MACT are sustainable
in law and on the facts, and whether any interference is
warranted? If so, on what grounds and to what extent?
1
2017 (16) SCC 680
10
4. What is the result in MACMA No.2009 of 2018?
5. What is the result in MACMA No.1293 of 2018?
Point No.1:
a. Parameters MACT can consider while assessing
negligence:
1. Whether there is denial by proper person.
2. There must be convincing evidence from disputing
party.
3. There must be at least oath against oath and tested by
cross-examination.
4. Examination of eye witnesses reflected in charge sheet
filed by Police is preferable. However, the same cannot be the
thumb rule.
5. Examination of witnesses present at the scene of
offence, at relevant time.
6. The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness
stand and denies the negligence, it will have some importance,
in cases of contributory negligence.
11
7. In cases of serious dispute as to planting of either
witnesses or vehicles, summoning the investigating officers and
eliciting the probabilities or improbabilities is necessary.
8. The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor
Vehicles Inspector Report indicating the damage to the vehicles
etc. will be helpful to draw some inference.
9. However, no straight jacket and standard formula is
possible and each matter has to be considered on its own
merits and facts and circumstances including the relevant and
reliable evidence placed before the tribunal.
10. Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter.
17. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and
mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social
welfare nature of legislation, the Tribunal shall have holistic view with
reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if
there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond
reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim
seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road
accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to
establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to
12this extent is settled and consistent. Reference can be made to the
following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court:
1. Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs. Joaquim Xavier
Cruz and another2
2. Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation3.
4. Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and
another5.
18. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the
Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi case (referred to as citation
3), which reads as under:
“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly
taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be
borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible
to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to
establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose,2
2013 (10) SCC 946
3
2009 (13) SCC 530
4
2011 (10) SCC 509
5
AIR 2023 (SC) 3349
13the High Court should have taken into consideration the
respective stories set forth by both the parties.”
19. While addressing the defence of contributory negligence, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati
Rangole and others6, at Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 made reference
to other judgments and extracted relevant observations which are as
follows:
36. In the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai
Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, {(2002) 6 SCC 455},
this Court while referring to a decision of the High Court of
Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd., {(1999) 73 ALJR 403},
went on to hold that:
“… where, by his negligence, if one party places
another in a situation of danger which compels that other
to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not
amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a
way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to
have been the best way out of the difficulty.”
37. In the very same judgment, this Court also referred to
and approved the view taken in Swadling v. Cooper, {1931
AC 1}, as below:
6
2024 (6) ALD (SC)=2024 SCC OnLine SC 2584
14“Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some
extra ordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute
negligence.”
20. The observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court lead to
understand that mere failure to avoid the collision or take
extraordinary precautions does not constitute negligence.
b. Analysis of evidence:
21. PW2, one Sri K.Sudhakar, stated that on 28.09.2012, while
he was going to Aditi Spinning Mill, he witnessed the deceased, Sri
K. Munaswamy, riding his motor cycle on the left side of the road
near Aditi Spinning Mill on the Srikalahasthi-Pitchatur Main Road.
At that time, an APSRTC bus, proceeding to Srikalahasthi and
being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motor
cycle. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died
on the spot.
22. During cross-examination, PW2 was unable to recall the
registration number of the offending vehicle or the motorcycle of the
deceased. However, he did provide the number of his own motor
cycle, which he was riding in the opposite direction to the offending
vehicle. He admitted that he did not lodge a report with the police
himself but stated that he was examined by the police. He denied
15
the suggestion made during cross-examination that he had not
witnessed the accident or that there was no negligence on the part
of the APSRTC bus driver.
23. It is pertinent to note that PW2 (Sri K. Sudhakar) is arrayed
as LW4 in the charge sheet, and his name is also mentioned in the
inquest report as a witness. There is no substantial reason to
disbelieve his testimony, particularly regarding the involvement of
the offending vehicle and the negligence of its driver.
24. Further, it is important to observe that the respondents in the
MVOP, who disputed the allegation of negligence, did not choose
the lead any kind of evidence in support of their claim. Thus, there is
not even ‘oath against oath’. In the present case before this Court,
the evidence is that the offending vehicle came from behind and hit
the motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling. Therefore, the
defence of contributory negligence by the deceased is fit to be
rejected. In light of the discussion made above, the findings of the
learned MACT regarding the negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle are found justified and acceptable.
25. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the
claimants and against the respondents, concluding that the
accident occurred solely due to the exclusive negligence of the
16
driver of the offending vehicle. There is no material on record to
establish any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
Point No.2:
a. Entitlement:
26. There is no dispute regarding the relationship of the claimants
with the deceased. The 1st claimant is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and
3 are the children and the 4th claimant is mother of the deceased.
Therefore, all the claimants are entitled for compensation.
b. Quantum of compensation:
27. Precedential Guidance for quantifying the compensation
in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents
causing death:-
a. Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation:
i. Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and
consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain
guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr.7 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while
prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned
7
2009 (6) SCC 121
17in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment
the claimants have to establish the following:
1. Age of the deceased.
2. Income of the deceased.
3. Number of dependents.
ii. Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining
the compensation, they are:
Step No.1:
Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the
deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and
the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal
living expenses of the deceased.
Step No.2:
Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table
provided and table is provided in judgment itself.
Step No.3:
Calculation of the compensation.
Final Step:
18
After calculation adding of certain amount towards
conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium,
funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for
treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised.
b. Adding of future prospects: i. Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi and Others8 case guided for adding of future
prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the
deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50
years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years.
ii. The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes.
Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is
recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25%
where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the
deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation
for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is
8
2017(16) SCC 680
19recommended by Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for
every three years in Pranay Sethi‘s case.
c. Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial
consortium:
Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable
compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram and Others9, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that
compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of
consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and
parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium.
d. Just Compensation:
In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 10, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant
observations, they are as follows:
10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award
compensation in excess of what is claimed in the
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this
case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal9
(2018) 18 SCC 130
10
(2013) 9 SCC 54
20Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003
SC 674] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280)“10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims
Tribunal to „make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just‟. Therefore,
the only requirement for determining the compensation is
that it must be „just‟. There is no other limitation or
restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.”
The principle was followed in the later decisions
in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6
SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010)
1 SCC (Cri) 1213]
11. Underlying principle discussed in the above
decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just
compensation and it has now become settled law that the
court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in
such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as
far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with
the compensation so that the injured/the dependants
should not face the vagaries of life on account of the
discontinuance of the income earned by the victim.
e. Adding of future prospects in respect of self employed,
non-earning group and notional income group :
21
In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors.11, the
Hon’ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed
that in respect of self-employed or in respect of non-earning or not
doing any job persons also there is no bar of adding future raise of
income or adopting notional income.
28. Analysis of evidence:
It is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per
month by undertaking welding work and Rs.50,000/- per annum from
agricultural operations.
a. Documentary evidence:
Ex.A7 to Ex.A17 are the documents supporting the claim that
the deceased is working as a welder. Ex.A18 shows the land owned
by the deceased. Ex.A19 is the Identity Card issued by the ESIC.
Ex.A20 is the 1-B Namoona (ROR). Ex.A21 is a copy of No.3
adangal. Ex.A22 is the passport of the deceased.
b. Oral evidence: i. PW1, the wife of the deceased, stated about the occupation of
the deceased. PW3, Sri B. Dilli, also deposed that the deceased is
11
(2021) 17 SCC 148
22working as a welder under him, which corroborating the evidence of
PW1 as to the deceased’s occupation. However, with regard to
agricultural income, no material is placed on record to support the
claim, except Exs.A20 and A21, Revenue Records indicating the
land holding by the deceased.
ii. The learned MACT has adopted the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.12,000/- and deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses. The Insurance Company contends that the income
assessed is excessive and unsupported by documentary proof.
However, in view of the voluminous evidence available, the income
of Rs.12,000/- per month, as accepted by the learned MACT, cannot
be approved as future prospects and agricultural income are not
added. However, doing some guess work, taking aid of evidence on
record, the income of the deceased is fit to be taken at Rs.15,000/-
inclusive of future prospects.
iii. The monthly income acceptable is at Rs.15,000/-
(Rs.1,80,000/- annually), after deducting 1/3rd (Rs.60,000/-),
multiplicand comes to Rs.1,20,000/-.
iv. As per the inquest report, the age of the deceased was 42
years, and for this age group, the appropriate multiplier is 14, in
23
accordance with the Sarla Verma Case (referred to as citation 7).
The learned MACT rightly adopted the multiplier of 14. Hence, the
quantification of compensation under the head of loss of dependency
comes to Rs.16,80,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- x 14).
v. With regard to loss of consortium, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
to the 1st claimant, Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses, and
Rs.1,00,000/- for love and affection awarded, require a revisit and
revamping, as they are not in line with the directives of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the cited judgments. The claimants are entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium: the 1st
claimant (wife) is entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head of spousal
consortium, claimant Nos.2 and 3 (children) are each entitled for
Rs.40,000/- under the head of parental consortium, and the 4th
claimant (mother) is entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head of filial
consortium. Thus, the total under this head is Rs.1,60,000/- for all
the claimants.
vi. Under the head of funeral expenses, the claimants are entitled
for Rs.15,000/-, as opposed to Rs.25,000/- awarded by the learned
MACT. Further, under the head of loss of estate, no amount was
awarded by the learned MACT. Therefore, the claimants are entitled
for Rs.15,000/- under this head.
24
vii. The amount awarded under the head of funeral expenses is
not in line with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Sarla
Verma case (referred to as citation 7) and the Pranay Sethi case
(referred to as citation 1).
viii. Since compensation is awarded under the head of loss of
consortium, awarding compensation again under the head of loss of
love and affection is unnecessary. Accordingly, the amount awarded
under the head of loss of love and affection required to be deleted.
ix. The entitlement of the claimants for compensation under
various heads, in comparison to the compensation awarded by the
learned MACT, is as follows, based on the decision made above:
Sl. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
No. MACT Appellate
Court
1. Loss of Rs.13,44,000/- Rs.16,80,000
dependency /-
2. Loss of Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,60,000/-
consortium
(Rs.40,000/- @
each claimant:
40,000x4)
3. Funeral Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Expenditure
4. Loss of love and Rs.1,00,000/- -Nil-
affection
5. Loss of estate -Nil- Rs.15,000/-
Total: Rs.15,69,000 /- Rs.18,70,000/-
(however, the learned
MACT mistakenly
totaled
Rs.15,94,000/-
25
29. Liability:
i. The Insurance Company disputed its liability, contending that
there is no privity of contract with the APSRTC and that the offending
vehicle was under the control of the APSRTC; therefore, it
disclaimed liability. Additionally, the Insurance Company argued that
the contributory negligence of the deceased, who was riding the
motor cycle, must be taken into account.
ii. With regard to the issue of contributory negligence under Point
No.1, it is concluded that there was no contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased. The accident occurred due to the sole
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the
Insurance Company cannot evade liability on that ground.
iii. With regard to the contention that the offending vehicle was
under the control of the APSRTC, it is pertinent to note that the
insurance policy runs with the vehicle. Moreover, the 2nd
respondent-owner of the offending vehicle, categorically stated that
the premium was duly paid at the time of obtaining the policy, in
terms of IMT-44. In this connection, it is relevant to consider the legal
position regarding the liability of the Insurance Company for a
vehicle hired by a Road Transport Corporation.
26
iv. While explaining the legal position in UPSRTC Vs. Kulsum12
and UPSRTC Vs. Rajenderi Devi and Others13, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation where a vehicle is hired to a Road Transport
Corporation. The interpretation of ‘owner’ under Section 2(19) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), is not exhaustive and
is to be understood in a broad and inclusive sense. Once the vehicle
is insured, it may be used by the owner or any other person with the
owner’s consent. Section 146 of the Act does not mandate that a
separate insurance policy must be taken by every person who uses
the vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape
liability merely on the ground that the vehicle was hired by the Road
Transport Corporation.
v. In view of the above legal and factual aspects, this Court
concludes that the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability and
is exclusively liable to pay the compensation.
vi. Accordingly, in view of the findings and conclusions drawn
above, Point No.2 is answered in the affirmative, holding that the
claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.18,70,000/- and that
12
(2011) 8 SCC 142
13
(2020) 19 SCC 230
27
the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation.
Point No.3:
30. For the reasons stated and conclusions drawn under Point
Nos.1 and 2, the decree and judgment dated 01.11.2013 passed by
the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, requires
modification.
Point Nos.4 and 5:-
1. In the result, MACMA No.2009 of 2018 filed by the
claimants is allowed, enhancing the compensation from
Rs.15,94,000/- to Rs.18,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum.
2. MACMA No.1293 of 2018 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed.
3. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at
Rs.15,94,000/- is enhanced to Rs.18,70,000/- with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum.
4. The apportionment of compensation made by the
learned MACT shall stand affirmed. However, the enhanced
portion of the compensation in the appeal shall be apportioned
28in tune with the apportionment made under the impugned
decree and judgment.
5. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit
the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months.
6. Upon deposit, the claimants, who are majors, shall be
entitled to withdraw the amount in full. The claimants, who are
minors, are entitled to withdraw the amount upon attaining
majority, subject to seeking necessary recognition as majors
and obtaining permission from the learned MACT.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the
Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
2nd May, 2025
cbn
29
22
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2009 and 1293 of 2018
2nd May, 2025
cbn
[ad_1]
Source link