The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the present MACMA against the Decree and Order, dated 15.07.2024 passed in M. V. O. P. No. 533 of 2021 on the file of Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Nizama bad. Counsel forthe Appeilant :SRl R NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: No representation The Court delivered the following: Judgment ._7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AI,ISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.1605 0F 2024 TUDGMENT Heard Sri i(.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/ petitioners. Ther,. is no rcpresentation on behalf of the respondents despite of servict' cf noticr' 2- Ihe prcsen: appeal has been filed by the appelJ.ants-petitioners dissatisfied with the au ard passccl by the Motor A<;cidents Claims ' I'ribunal-cum-Pr Lncipa I District and Sessions Judge, Nlizamabad (for short, 'Tribunal') ir.r M\z(lP No.533 of 2021, dated 15.07.2024 and thereby seeking fol enhancement of compensation

3. Appellants herein are the petitioners, respondenl: No.1 herein is respondent No.1-on,nc.r of crimc vchicle and respondent No.2 herein is the responclent No.2-insurance cornpany before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the I'ribunal

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:

4.7. On 20.07.2027 at about 3.30 p.m., Kunta Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as'tleceasecl') (who was working as driver under the respondent No.l ) :nd rvhile he ,,r,as driving KG wheels fractor bearing regisrration NO l'S-16-AN- IR-6876 (hereinaf ter referre,d to as crime 2 LNA,) MACMA No.1605 o12024 vehicle) from the fields of Teliu Poshetty to Sirnapally village, suddenly the front wheel went upon the stones, due to which, the deceased thrown away from the tractor and fell before the tractor and tractor ran over him, as a result,, he received multiple and grievous injuries ail over the body and died on the spot.

4.2 The Police, Indalwai Police Station registered a case in Crime No.125 oI2021under Section 304-4 of IPC.

4.3. The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased, incurred an amount of Rs.1,00,000- towards transportation of body and for performing funeral and last rites of the deceased; that deceased was aged 25 years and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month and batta of Rs.200/- per day and Rs.5,000,/- per month as Electrician.

4.4. The petitioners contended the crime vehicle was owned by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.2-insurance company and therefore, filed claim petition under Seciions 166 (1)(c) & 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased

5. The respondent No.1 filed counter admitting that he is the owner of the crime vehicle and the same was insured with the respondent no.2 as on the date of the accident and therefore, the insurance company is rY 3 LNA,! MACMA No.1605 oJ 2024 only liable for payment of compensation and prayecl to dismiss the claim petition against him. 6 The respondent No.2-insurance company fiied counter denying the narration of occurrence of accident, as put-forth b'y the petitioner, the age, avocati,rn and earnings of the petitioner. The' respondent No.2 further contended that the accident had occurred clue to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, and denied that that deceased was having valid licence. It is further contended that compensation c iaimed is excessive and prayed to lismiss the claim petition

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the follorving issues, 1) WheLrer the deceased-Kunta Srinivas s/o.Kunta Sudharshan died in tlre motor vehicle accident occurred on |10.07.2021 at about 1i.30 p.m., in the shivar of Sirnapally village n:ar the fields of Chakali Rajender at a distance of 9 KMs towards South-Eash from I'S Indalwar clue to the KG wheel tractor bearing No.T916- AN-TII-6876 went upon the stones, deceased fled arvay from the tractor and fell before the tractor and the Lractor ran over him by its dri ,,er ? 2) Whether the driver of the vehicle (KG wheel tractor bearing No.TS l6-AN-6876) rvas posscssing valid driving licence to ride the vchicle at the timc of accident ? 3) Whethcr the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to \a,hat cxtent and from whom ? 4) To wh.rt relief ? 4 LNA.I MACMA No.1605 oJ 2O2a 11

8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to 4.16 were marked. On behalf of respondent no.1, RW.1 was examined and no document was marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2-insurance company, RW.2 was examined and copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

9. The Tribunal, on due appreciation of the material and evidence placed on record, awarded a sum of Rs.3,49,500/- towards compensation to the petitioners payable by the respondent Nos.1 to and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition ti1l the date of realization.

10. The learned counsel for appellants/ petitioners submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- , which comes to Rs.2,L6,000/- per annum, however, the Tribunal has erroneousiy considered the annual income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- by wrongly applying the Schedule-Il of the Act, 1988 and in any event, a sum of Rs.3,49,500/ - awarded by the Tribunal is too meager. It is further contended that despite placing relevant evidence and marking of driving licence issued by Sultanate of Omary VISA con{irmation, Job agreement, SCC Memo, Intermediate Pass Certificate, lFeahnical Certificate, etc., which are marked as Exs.A7 to 13, I the Tribunal did not consider the said documents and e'vidence and has LNA,I MACMA No.1605 of 2024 awarded meage: amount erroneouslY Consideration:

11. It is relevant to note that Crime No.125 of 202'l was registered under Section 301-A of IPC by the Indalwai Police Station in respect of the motor vehi<,le accident that took place on 20.07.2.021. In the said accident, the deceased, who was driving the crime vetricle, died on the r spot and after conducting investigation, the Police came to a conclusion that accident has taken place because of the self Lr,egligence of the deceased and filt:d Ex.A5-final report as'action abatecl' and closed the criminal case

72. T'he Tribunal taking into consideration the closur:e of the criminal case as 'action abated' had considered the claim petil.ir:n under Section 163-,4 of the NIV Act though the claim petition w rs originally filed under Sectior-rs 166(1) (c) & 167 of the Act, 1988.'fhe Tribunal by referring to Schcdule-Il of the Act, 1988, considered the arurual income of the deceaserl as Rs.40,000/- and applied multiplier 18 since the deceased was aged 25 years in accordance with Schedule-Il and total compensation pa1,able was arrived at Rs.6,80,000 ,t-; tltat since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income of the deceased was deducted towarr{s his personal expenses and the Tribunal awarded an ) 6 LNA,) MACMANo-1605 of 2024 amount of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation on account of death of the deceased. The Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/ - for loss of consortium, and Rs.2,500/ - towards loss of estate and thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation amount of Rs.3,49,500/-

13. It is relevant to note that the Police after conducting enquiry in criminal case, which was registered under Section 304-4 of IpC, came to conclusion that accident has taken place due to seif negligence of the deceased and there{ore, closed the criminal case as 'action abated'. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the claim petition under Section 163-4 of the Act, 1988 though the claim petition as originally filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. in the present case, the deceased was driving the tractor and as per the evidence on record, the tractor hit a boulder and turned turtle, due to which the deceased fell down and died on the spot. There is no involvement of third party vehicle in the said accident and, therefore, the claim petition is maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and thus, the Tribunal has rightly considered the claim petition under Section 163-4 of the Act, 1988, where petiLioners need not prove the negligence on the part of crime vehicle, unlike claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988, where the claimants have to prove rash and negligent clriving 7 LNA,) MA.MA No.1605 oJ 2024 of offending vel-ricle. Admittedly, in the present cas(', the accident has taken place because of the self-negligence of the deceased and it is also evident from thc closer report of the Police and further, the criminal case was closed as'action abated' 1,4. In view ot the above discussiory in considered. opinion of this Court, there is n,r merit in the appeal and appellants / petitioners failed to make out arr\., case warranting interference by this Court and the , appeal fails ancl Ls accoldingly dismissed. There shalI be no order as to To, Pending rniscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed ,TRUE COPY// sd/- N. sBtHARt DEPUTYREGISTRAR r'/ SECTION OFFICER \\

1. The Motor Acc,dents Claims Tribunal (Principal District ,Judge) at Nizamabad(With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRI R NAGARJUNA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1605 of 2024 r1.E S fAI 1 (.... q o 'l' ( +' t 2 3 APH 2025 * ) s.s pat c\1 6_O DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS {$ v\