MACMA/3033/2007 of THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs KOTLA NAGAMMA AND 4 ORS on 30 December 2022

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Actby the United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by theorder and decree, dated f7.07.2007 passed in O.P.No.341 of 2005on the file oF the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll AdditionalDistrict -ludge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short "the Tribunal").

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafterreferred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a claim-petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death ofone Yugendhar (hereinafter referred to as..the deceased,,), whodied in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.06.2005 at3.pm. It is stated that on that date the deceased, along with hisbrother-in-law pillala Bixam, was going on Hero puch bearingNo.AP-24-B-7239 and when they reached'the Regulator No.2g ofMusi Canal, a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.Ap_ Z4-J_7354,driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner at high speed anddashed the deceased from opposite direction, as a result, thedeceased fell down in the regulator canal. received severe headinjury and died on the spot. On a complaint, police, Vemulapally,registered a case in Crime No.69 of 2005 agajnst the rider of the l NBK, JMACMA 3033 2007

l

NBK, JMACMA 3033 2007

Motorcycle for the offence punishable under Section 304-4 of I.P.C.It is also stated that prior to the date of accident, the deceased wasIt is also stated that prior to the date of accident, the deceased washale and healthy, aged about 52 years and was earning Rs.14,910/-per month as he was working as Head Master in Primary School,Thelagagudem of Kethepally Mandal. Due to sudden demise of thedeceased, the petitioners lost their source of income, love andaffection. Since the accident occurred only due to the rash andper month as he was working as Head Master in Primary School,Thelagagudem of Kethepally Mandal. Due to sudden demise of thedeceased, the petitioners lost their source of income, love andaffection. Since the accident occurred only due to the rash andnegligent driving of the rider of Motorcycle bearing No.AP-24-l-7354, the petitioners filed the aforesaid O.P. against therespondents, who are the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle.respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1't respondent remainedex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denied all theallegations made in the claim-petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed thefollowing issues:

1) Whether the deceased Kotla Yugendhar died in the motorvehicle accident, if so, whether the accident occurred dueto the rash and negligent driving by the driver of HeroHonda Motorcycle bearing No.AP-24-J-7354?vehicle accident, if so, whether the accident occurred dueto the rash and negligent driving by the driver of HeroHonda Motorcycle bearing No.AP-24-J-7354?

2) Whbther the claimants are entitled to any compensation,. [if ][so, ][what ][is the ][quantum ][and ][from ][whom ][it ][should ][be]collected?. [if ][so, ][what ][is the ][quantum ][and ][from ][whom ][it ][should ][be]collected?

3) To what relief?

6. During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 wereexamined and Exs.A1 to AB were marked. On behalf of the 2"drespondent, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.81 was marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidenceavailable on record, the Tribunal held that the rider of Hero HondaMotorcycle was responsible for the accident as well as for the deathof the deceased in the accident and accordingly awarded an amountof Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 7 .5o/o [per ]annum from the date ofpetition till the date of realization to be paid by both therespondents [jointly ]and severally. Aggrieved by the said order anddecree, the 2nd respondent has filed the present appeal.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company hassubmitted that the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier'11'instead of '7.68' and prayed to reduce the compensation asawarded by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the [petitioners/claima ]nts has submittedthat considering the age, avocation and earnings of the deceasedand by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in sarraVerma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation' the Tribunal has I

rightly awarded [just ]compensation, which needs no interference bythis Court.

11. A perusal of the impugned [judgment ]would show that theTribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident hadoccurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero HondaMotorcycle by its rider, to which the Tribunal after considering theevidence of P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence, hascategorically observed that the accident has occurred due to therash and negligent driving of the rider of the Motorcycle and hasanswered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of theTribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligentdriving of the driver of Motorcycle.

12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, aperusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal passeda well reasoned order by taking into coniideration all the aspects,the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @7.5o/o per annum and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to depositthe said ambunt within one month.from the date of order. Hence,there are no grounds to interfere with the findings arrived at by theTribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

I

To,

NBK, J

I,4ACMA 3033 2007

13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dism,ssed, confirming theorder and decree dated 1,7.O7.2OO7 passed in O.P.No.341 of 2005on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll AdditionalDistrict ludge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. There shall be no order as tocosts.

1.4. Miscellaneous petitions. if any, pending shall stand closed Sd/. V. KAVITHAASSISTANT REGISTRAR'- )tt ,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chaiiman Motor [iAccident ]Claims [Tribunal ][-cum- ][ll ][Additional ][District]Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

2. One CC to SRl. SOMANCHI [VENKATESWARLU, Advocate ][OPUC]

3. One CC to SRI CHALAKANI [VENKAT ][YADAV, ][Advocate ]IoPUC]

4. Two CD Copiesc\lF

IIIIi

HIGH COURTDATED:3011212022JUDGNIENTMACMA.No.3033 [of ][2007],a1i-,[:: ][liT.C ][fC:]lzC)ti3 [21][ tut ][2$8]-i-.r1,.7\:..'t/'-_-jL:

DISMISSING'I'HE APPEAI,

S$*.\'S

t

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIVBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3033 OF 2007

Be tn'ecn:

The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, O/o.Divisional Office, KothagudemTown & Mandal, Khammam District, rep by its Senior Divisional Manager.

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.2

AND

I

1. Kotla Nagamma, W/o.Yugendhar, Occ: Household, R/o.Suryapet Town,Nalgonda District.Nalgonda District.2. Kotla Nagarjuna, S/o.Yugendhar, Occ: Student, R/o.Suryapet Town,Nalgonda District.INalgonda District.I3. Kotla Kalyan, S/o.Yugehdhar, Occ: Student, R/o.Suryapet Town, NalgondaDistrict. iDistrict. i4. Kotla Mattamma, Wo.Narsaiah, Occ: Nil R/o.Suryapet Town, NalgondaDistrict. ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTSDistrict. ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS

District. ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS5. N.Sathyanarayana, S/o.Janaki Ramulu, Owner of Hero Honda lvlotor CycleBearing No.AP 234 J 7354) Rl/o.H.No.6-559, Ramnagar, lr,4iryalguda Town,Nalgodna District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1Bearing No.AP 234 J 7354) Rl/o.H.No.6-559, Ramnagar, lr,4iryalguda Town,Nalgodna District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1

Appeal Under SectionlT3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree inO.P.No. 341 of 2005 daled 17-07 -2007 on the file of the Court of the ChairmanMotor Accident ['Claims ]Tribunal -cum- ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda atSuryapet.

ORDER: This Appeal coming on for hearing and upen perusing the ground ofappeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in thecase and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU

Advocate for the Appellants and SRI CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV, Advocate forthe Respondents.

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed; and

2. Thai there shall be no orders as to cost in this appeal

Arguments

Sd/- V. KAVITHAASSISTANT REGISTRAR,TRUE COPY//CpSECTION OFFICER

To,1. The Chairman NrotorAccident Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional DistrictJudge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.1. The Chairman NrotorAccident Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional DistrictJudge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

2. Two CD Copies

Ak

IIiI

l

HIGH COURTNBK,JDATED:3011212022

DECREEMACMA.No.3033 of [2007]IIIj

DISMISSINC'IHE APPEAL

@.sAM

I