HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 896 OF 2010
DATED: 03.09.2014
BETWEEN:
United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District.
….Appellant and Sammamma and others ….Respondents.
This Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 896 of 2010
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the Award dated 29.06.2009 in O.P.No.686 of 2007 passed by the learned Chairman, MACT-cum-II Additional District Judge, R.R. District, N.T.R.Nagar, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) granting compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of 14 years minor boy D.Ramulu, the 3rd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited preferred the instant appeal.
2. The parties in the appeal are referred to as they stood before the Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix of the case is thus:
On 24.04.2007 at about 12.30 noon when the deceased was proceeding in front of Peoples College, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, the driver of jeep bearing No.AP 28 G 4873 came at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, causing his death. The claimant-mother of the deceased preferred O.P.No.686 of 2007 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act against respondents 1 to 3, who are driver, owner and insurer of the offending jeep and claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation under different heads.
a) The first and second respondents remained ex parte.
b) The third respondent, Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim denying all the material averments.
c) During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the claimant. None were examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, but policy copy filed by respondent No.2 was marked as Ex.B.1.
d) A perusal of the judgment, insofar as issue no.1 is concerned, the Tribunal basing on the evidence of PW.2- eye witness coupled with Ex.A.1-F.I.R., Ex.A.2-charge sheet, Ex.A.3-inquest report, Ex.A.4-scene of panchanama, Ex.A.5-M.V.I. report and Ex.A.6- Postmortem examination report, has opined that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the jeep driver. Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal taking into consideration of the fact that the deceased boy was aged 14 years, studying 10th class and also considering that the mother of the deceased- claimant lost her future dependency due to his death and by following a decision reported in Santosh Rani v. Ranjit Singh and others
[1]
, awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the claimant against R.2 and R.3-owner and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle.
Hence the appeal by the United India Insurance Company Limited.
4. Heard arguments of Sri T.Narsi Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant—Insurance Company and Sri G.Anandam, learned Counsel for the first respondent- Claimant.
a. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that PW.2 was not an eye witness and has not seen the occurrence of the accident, but he was wrongly dubbed as an eye witness. Except his evidence, no other eye witnesses were examined by the claimant to prove the fault of the jeep driver. He contended that the fault lies on the deceased himself as he tried to cross the road unmindful of vehicles passing on the road. On this main ground, he prayed to allow the appeal.
b. Secondly, he argued that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in lump sum method is also high side.
c. Thirdly, he argued that the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal is also on higher side and the same needs to be scaled down. He, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal and exonerate the insurance company from liability.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant argued that the accident was occurred only due to the fault of the driver of the jeep and the Tribunal rightly appreciated the fact that PW.2 was an eye witness who was running a tea stall near the place of accident and basing on the documents and the evidence of PW.2, the Tribunal held that the jeep driver was responsible for the accident. He thus submitted that there is no fault in the finding of the Tribunal.
Secondly, he argued that the deceased was the only son of the claimant and due to his abrupt death, she lost her future hopes and in that context he argued, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is just and reasonable and there is no need to review the same. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. In the light of the above divergent/rival arguments, the point for determination is :
Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is factually and legally sustainable?
POINT:
7. The accident, involvement of the jeep bearing No.AP 28 G 4873 and the death of the deceased are not in dispute.
8. To establish the fault of the jeep driver, the claimant examined PW.2 as eye witness. The evidence of PW.2 is that he was running a tea stall near the place of accident, the accident took place before his shop, before accident he was present at his tea stall and observed the manner in which the accident took place. He narrated that the deceased got down the bus and while proceeding towards straight from left side of the bus, the offending jeep came from his opposite side and dashed him and immediately the deceased was taken to hospital, where he was declared as dead. PW.2 asserted that the accident was occurred only due to the fault of the jeep driver. In the cross-examination, PW.2 stated that he does not know PW.1-the mother of the deceased prior to the accident. He further stated that the shop is situated at a distance of 10 feet from the road, where the accident occurred and at the time of accident he was doing business in his shop. He further stated that the road where the accident took place is a double road and a busy road. He stated that before accident the deceased was going by walk after getting down from the bus. He also stated that the jeep was plying from Chincholi to Tandur and after the boy was hit by the jeep, he along with others went to the place of accident. He stated that he did not give report to the police about the accident. He denied the suggestion that he did not witness the accident and deposing falsehood.
9. Thus, a perusal of the evidence of PW.2 would show that he is a third party and is not related to PW.1. He clearly deposed that he was present in his tea stall at the time of accident and the accident took place near his tea stall and he witnessed the accident. Nothing useful was extracted in the cross-examination to impeach the credibility of his evidence. He is mentioned as eye witness in the charge sheet. The evidence of PW.2 can be believed by considering all these facts. His evidence clearly shows the fault of the jeep driver. The Tribunal rightly believed the evidence of PW.2 and concluded that the accident was occurred due to fault of the jeep driver. I endorse the same view.
10. When coming to the quantum of compensation, the deceased boy was aged 14 years old and a student. The claimant is his mother. She lost her future hopes due to the death of the deceased. Considering all these facts and following the decision reported in Santosh Rani’s case (supra), the Tribunal rightly granted compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in it. So far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal allowed 7.5% per annum, which cannot be said to be excessive.
11. In view of the above discussion, I find no merits and accordingly the appeal is dismissed by confirming the Award passed by the Tribunal. No costs in the appeal.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 3rd September 2014 mar
[1] 2008(4) ALT 50 (SC)