Gade Sujatha v. T.Ammaji

Judgment

30-08-2012 Between: Gade Sujatha and others ..Appellants

1. T.Ammaji and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Judmgent: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA C.M.A.No.4094 of 2003 Judgment: The claimants have filed this appeal impugning the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda in O.P.No.865 of 2000, dated 23-07-2002 vide which a compensation of Rs.15,000/- was awarded together with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 17-01-1999, one Gade Sujatha (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) along with others boarded the lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 V 8117 ( hereinafter referred to as “the crime vehicle”) to go to Miryalaguda for their livelihood along with household articles; and when the crime vehicle reached Vemulapally, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against another lorry which was coming in the opposite direction; as a result of which, the crime vehicle turned turtle and the deceased suffered injuries to the left thigh, head and other parts of the body; immediately after the accident, she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Miryalaguda whereat she was treated for 45 days and later she succumbed to injuries; therefore, the claimants have filed the aforesaid petition under Section 166 r/w Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent–owner cum driver of the crime vehicle remained ex-parte, but subsequently he filed a counter without any application to set aside the ex-parte order, denying the liability and pleading that the crime vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent— Insurance Company. The 2nd respondent—Insurance Company filed a counter denying in general the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and its involvement in the accident; disputing about travelling of the claimant in the crime vehicle and pleading that the compensation claimed by the claimant was excessive and exorbitant. One Smt.Gade Yellamma, the mother of the deceased, was examined as P.W.13 and got marked Exs.A1, Ex.A3, A37, A38 and A40. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal after going through the entire evidence brought on record held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and also held that the respondents 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation inasmuch as the insurance policy issued by the second respondent-Insurance Company in respect of the crime vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident. Holding so, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Seeking enhancement of the compensation the claimants have filed the present appeal. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that as the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as a labourer and she succumbed to injuries suffered in the accident, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation than what was awarded. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting rate of interest at 9% instead of 12% per annum. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company contended the deceased was an unauthorised traveller/passenger in the goods vehicle (crime vehicle); therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The learned counsel however submits that the Tribunal, after careful scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, rightly awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation, which is just and reasonable and therefore the same need not be interfered with. Perused the case file. Apropos the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that as the deceased was an unauthorized passenger, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, it is pertinent to state that Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of the Act states that a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or class of persons specified in the policy against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damaged to any property of a third party caused by arising out of the vehicle in a public place. The Legislature did not completely exclude the passengers who are travelling in the goods vehicle to claim any compensation under the Act to which they are legally entitled to. Motor Vehicles Act itself is a social legislation which is enacted by the Legislature in order to provide succour and rescue the kith and kin of the deceased persons or the persons who are injured in the motor vehicle accident, from the pathetic conditions of sudden financial loss. With that background and avowed object only the Legislature included the risk of any person including owner of goods …… in the said section by way of Amendment Act, 1994. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the accident occurred on 17-01- 1999; and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability on the ground that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle. It is to be seen from the evidence brought on record that the appellants and other co-travellers of the deceased deposed before the Tribunal in the same lines to that of the averments made in the claim petitions that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. Ex.A1 the FIR; Ex.A3—the charge sheet filed against the driver of the crime vehicle unequivocally support the oral testimony of the appellants and other co-travellers. No evidence was brought on record by the respondents to rebut the aforesaid evidence. In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. Having carefully gone through the evidence brought on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal rightly held so and having due regard to the evidence brought on record, the finding did not warrant interference the discussion made hereinabove. Further, it is to be seen that it was admitted in evidence that the crime vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent—Insurance Company and the insurance policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident. The next issue that remains to be considered is the quantum of compensation. P.W.13, the mother of the deceased, in her evidence deposed that the deceased suffered injuries to the left thigh, head and other parties of the body and that immediately after the incident, the deceased took treatment for 45 days by spending considerable amount of Rs.30,000/-. Ex.A.37 shows that the deceased suffered injury to public rumors and also another injury. However, it is to be seen that though the deceased died after the discharge from hospital, the appellants/claimants have not filed any document nor examined any doctor to prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. In the absence of any definite evidence it cannot be said that the deceased succumbed to injuries suffered in the motor vehicle accident. Nonetheless, it is obvious from the record that the deceased was a labourer and used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month. Further, she was treated for 45 days in Government Hospital. In the light of the above, it is considered to be just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to the claimants. Coming to the award of interest, it is to be seen that having regard to the policy of the Reserve Bank of India, the said compensation invariably carries interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. In the result, the appellants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) towards compensation together with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, which shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. 30-08-2012 Murthy