IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2381 of 2007 DATE:23.11.2010 Between: The United India Insurance Co., Ltd., …… Appellant And Lasani Chinna Buchi Mallaiah and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2381 of 2007 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by award dated 23.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in M.V.O.P.No.501 of 2005, the insurance company filed this appeal. The company took required permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the lower Tribunal at the appropriate stage. In the accident which took place on 21.05.2004 at about 8.30 P.M in the outskirts of Lakdaram village on Rajiv Rahadari, the deceased died. Evidence of the eye witness P.W-2 reveals that due to exhaust of diesel in D.C.M van/mini lorry bearing No.AP 28 T 7062, the said vehicle stranded in the middle of that road and the deceased who was riding Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing No.AP 16 D 2422 along with a pillion rider dashed the stationed van, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The claimants pleaded that D.C.M van alone was responsible for this accident as it was parked in middle of the road without signal lights during night time. The police registered case against D.C.M van driver and issued Ex.A-1 F.I.R. and after investigation filed Ex.A-2 charge sheet against the same driver. The lower Tribunal found that driver of D.C.M van was responsible for this accident and awarded the compensation amount as against owner and insurer of the said vehicle. The lower Tribunal notionally arrived at income of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day and fixed dependency of the dependants after deducting 1/3 thereof, as Rs.18,000/- per annum. For the age of 36 years of the deceased, the lower Tribunal took 16 as multiplier and arrived at compensation payable as Rs.2,88,000/- and awarded the same with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the lower Tribunal failed to consider negligence contributed by the deceased for this accident and that width of D.C.M van was not much when compared to width of Rajiv Rahadari which is a national highway and that if the deceased was not negligent enough he could have turned his scooter to any side of the stationed D.C.M van. It is also contended that as per evidence of P.W-2 who is the eye witness and who was in cabin of the D.C.M van, he got down from the cabin and was standing by the side of D.C.M van. There is no evidence on record to show whether there was any lighting at the scene of accident either by way of street lights or from lighting from nearby houses or whether there were any houses around the scene of accident. Since the scene of accident is stated to be outskirts of Lakdaram village, one cannot expect existence of any houses around it and either street lighting or other types of lighting. When there were no signal lights for the stationed van, drivers of vehicles who were behind the van would only think that the said vehicle was in motion and proceed accordingly. It is contended that when P.W-2 was standing by the side of the stationed D.C.M van, the deceased should have noted that the van was stationed and a person was standing by its side. In any event, van driver could have taken precautions by switching signal lights to the D.C.M van or by placing some articles or flags etc., on back side of the stationed van in order to give signal to drivers of vehicles coming from behind that the van was stationed. Even though the van stopped for want of diesel, driver of the said van could have towed the vehicle to a side beyond road margin, so that the van was no obstruction for the vehicles to pass on that national highway. At the same time, if the deceased was careful enough and cautious enough and saw the van in head light focus of his scooter, he could have averted the accident. A scooterist going on a national highway cannot sight a stationed vehicle ahead of him from a long distance. Unfortunately the scooterist dashed the stationed van and died on the spot. Having regard to the totality of circumstances and having regard to the fact that it was the deceased who hit the stationed van in the middle of the road, I am of the opinion that the deceased also contributed negligence for this accident. In the circumstances, I assess contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 25%. Accordingly, compensation payable for death of the deceased in this case has to be reduced by 25% and it comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. 3) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs altering compensation amount awarded by the lower Tribunal from Rs.2,88,000/- to Rs.2,16,000/-. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 23, 2010 ksh