IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.2496 of 2008 Between: The Assistant Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Mechanical Sub-division, Vijayawada and others ..... APPELLANTS AND Vadapalli Prabhavathi and others ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This M.A.C.M.A. is filed as against the order made in O.P.No.560 of 1992 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience). 3. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration had taken this court through the contents of the respective pleadings of the parties, issues settled, evidence available on record and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case since the Tribunal totally erred in awarding compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-, the same to be allowed. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration also would maintain that at any rate awarding of interest at 12% p.a., being on the higher side and the same to be modified. 4. Per contra Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel representing the petitioners in O.P. – the respondents in the present M.A.C.M.A. would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the Tribunal it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record the following points that arises for consideration in this M.A.C.M.A. are: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal – the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam are to be confirmed or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. Whether the interest of 12% p.a., granted by the Tribunal to be confirmed or to be modified in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 3. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 9. POINT Nos.1 and 2:- For the purpose of convenience the point Nos.1 and 2 are being discussed together. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as petitioners and respondents as shown in M.V.O.P. aforesaid. 10. M.V.O.P. was filed by the legal heirs of one deceased Rama Chandra Raju claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The averments made in the O.P. are: The deceased Ramachandra Raju was working as Technician in Visakhapatnam Steel plant and was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m., by virtue of his qualifications and terms of employment. The deceased would have gained at least three promotions in the usual course, had he been alive. The deceased was aged 36 years, hale and healthy. On 18-04-92 at about 11.45 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding from Gajuwaka towards Kurmannapalem on his scooter bearing No.AIJ 5575 with one Kosuri Ramu as pillion rider on the extreme left side of the N.H.No.5 road slowly and cautiously, the jeep bearing registration No.ADM 1305 belonging to R & B Department driven by the 1st respondent came in the opposite direction and dashed the deceased, as a result of which the deceased and the pillion rider fell on the road, resulting grievous injuries which proved fatal subsequently. He was shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam and on the same day at about 2.30 p.m., he succumbed to the injuries. The accident occurred due to the sole rash and negligent driving by 1st respondent only. Due to the premature death of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered mental agony and lost their prospective future, love and affection, though loss sustained by the petitioners, cannot be compensated in terms of cash, the petitioners are claiming a minimum compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- only and also petitioners reserved a right to revise the claim and are ready and willing to pay the deficit court fee in case the Tribunal awards more compensation, rather than the claimed one. 1st respondent bring the driver of the crime jeep, 2nd respondent being the registered owner of the vehicle and the State of Andhra Pradesh being the authority having ultimate control over the crime vehicle, and the 2nd respondent department, are all jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 11. The second respondent filed counter stating that the jeep ADM 1305 does not belong to this respondents department at Vijayawada, and that the jeep ADM 1305 which was purchased in April, 1977 was transferred to the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Visakhapatnam on 16-04-1977 from their Division as per the allotment orders of the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Mechanical Division, Vijayawada (vide issue note dated 16-4-77) copies of which are enclosed for perusal, since then the jeep is in the possession and utilization of the Roads and Buildings Division, Visakhapatnam, as such, the Roads and Buildings, Vijayawada Division has nothing to do with the jeep or the alleged accident, and that change of address in ‘C’ book of the vehicle has been made on 28-04-92 in favour of Dy. Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, hence, this respondent is not a necessary party to the proceedings, but the Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam Division is the necessary party to be impleaded in the proceedings. 12. The first respondent also filed counter denying several of the allegations. It is stated that this respondent is not aware or does not admit the allegations that the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Ramachandra Raju and that 4th petitioner is his mother, and that deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- at the time of accident, and that he was hale and healthy, and that he would have been highly placed had he been alive are the aspects to be strictly proved by the petitioners. The allegation that deceased was proceeding from Gajuwaka towards Kurmannapalem side on his scooter along with one K. Ramu as pillion rider has to be proved. On 18-04-1992 this respondent who is the driver in the Roads and Buildings Department was on duty and the senior officials of Roads and Buildings Department were traveling in that jeep in connection with their official tour and the jeep was proceeding towards Gajuwaka, there is an over-bridge and there is an approach road for the over-bridge which is having steep upward gradient, there is a culvert near the beginning and the traffic, two persons who were completely immersed in conversation with each other were coming in the opposite direction on a scooter, they have already cross the over-bridge and were traveling in his speed, since the road was having downward gradient in that direction, on account of the traffic and also on account of lack of concentration due to conversation the scooterist (deceased) lost control over the vehicle, and that the scooter grazed near the right foot board of the jeep and hit the pavement on the side of the culvert and both persons fell down. Hence, the accident occurred only due to the negligence of deceased, but not due to the negligence of this respondent. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 13. The fourth respondent also filed counter repeating the allegations of the first respondent. 14. On the strength of the pleadings the following issues are settled: 1. Whether the accident has taken place that resulted in causing the death of the deceased due to rash and negligent driving of jeep ADM-1305 by R-1 ? 2. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation and if so, to what quantum and by which respondent ? 3. To what relief ? 15. Before the Tribunal PWs.1 to 3 and RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked. The said documents which have been marked as hereunder: Ex.A-1 Technical qualification certificate. Ex.A-2 Transfer certificate showing the date of birth of the deceased. Ex.A-3 Provisional pass certificate showing the deceased passed welding in ITI. Ex.A-4 Training in Advanced Technology of the deceased. Ex.A-5 Pay slip issued by Shipyard for month of 4/91 Ex.A-6 Pay slip for the month of November 91. Ex.A-7 Driving licence for driving light vehicle. Ex.A-8 F.I.R. in Cr.No.12/92 steel plant P.S. Ex.A-9 Postmortem Ex.A-10 Inquest report. Ex.A-11 M.V.I. report 16. The Tribunal – the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and appreciated the evidence in detail. Apart from the evidence of PW-1 who had supported the averments made in O.P., PW-2 another injured person was also examined who had supported version of PW-1 and PW-3 the Manager (Personal Department) Steel Plant was also examined. As against this evidence the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 had been let in by the respondents. Ex.A-1 is the technical qualification certificate, Ex.A- 2 is the transfer certificate showing the date of birth of the deceased, Ex.A-3 is the provisional pass certificate showing the deceased passed welding in ITI, Ex.A-4 is the training in Advanced Technology of the deceased, Ex.A-5 is the pay slip issued by Shipyard for month of 4/91, Ex.A-6 is the pay slip for the month of November 91, Ex.A-7 is the driving licence for driving light vehicle, Ex.A-8 is the F.I.R. in Cr.No.12/92 steel plant P.S., Ex.A-9 is the postmortem, Ex.A-10 is the Inquest report and Ex.A-11 is the M.V.I. report. 17. This court had carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal that after applying the multiplier given in the schedule the petitioner would get Rs.3,84,000/- towards compensation. However, since claim was made only for Rs.3,50,000/-, the same had been awarded. 18. Inasmuch as the said finding had been made on appreciation of evidence available on record this court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings and the said findings are hereby confirmed. But, however, the amount awarded shall carry interest at 12% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs by all the respondents jointly and severally and the claim against second respondent no doubt was dismissed even by the Tribunal. Inasmuch as the 12% p.a., interest had been granted, this court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to modify the same to 7.5 % p.a., except modifying the interest from 12% p.a., to 7.5 % p.a., in all other respect the findings are hereby confirmed. 19. Accordingly, to the said extent the MACMA is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J April 22, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.2496 of 2008 April 22, 2010