1. This appeal, preferred under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the order and decree dated 16.09.2005 passed in O.P.No.844 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order’) by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal – cum - I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status before the learned Tribunal.

FACTS IN BRIEF

3. The case of the claimants, as borne out from the record, is that the claimants being the wife, children and aged parents of one Hariya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed claim petition alleging that on 29.07.2001, at about 5:30 a.m., while the deceased was crossing National Highway No.9 from his house to fetch water, an Ambassador car bearing registration No.UMF-T-7569 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased near NSPJ Function Hall, Hayathnagar. Due to the impact, the deceased fell on the road and suffered head and other injuries. He was thereafter shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment, wherein he succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident.

4. As per the claim petition, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing petty business and that the claimants were dependent upon his earnings. Thus, the claimants instituted the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, pleading that the untimely death of the deceased had put them to shock and mental agony which cannot be compensated in any manner.

5. Respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition and was accordingly set ex parte. Respondent No.2, the insurer, filed a counter denying the material averments and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL

6. In order to establish the claim, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked.

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL

7. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,08,000/-. It is pertinent to note that though the learned Tribunal computed compensation of Rs.2,16,000/-, while answering issue No.1, the learned Tribunal apportioned the negligence equally between the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle, observing that the deceased failed to look for vehicles while crossing the National Highway. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded only 50% of the compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

8. Heard Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj, learned amicus curiae representing Mr.K. Balagopal, learned counsel on record for the claimants and Mr.Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle was set ex parte before the learned Tribunal and has not entered appearance in this appeal either. The material available on record has been perused.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

9. On considering the rival contentions, the only point that arises for determination in the present appeal is: “Whether the appellants/claimants have made out any valid and sustainable grounds for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and consequent interference with the impugned order?”

ANALYSIS:

10. Admittedly, neither of the respondents preferred any appeal challenging the impugned order. There is no dispute that as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy under Ex.B1 was subsisting.

11. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the learned Tribunal erred in apportioning 50% negligence to the deceased without properly appreciating the cogent and uncontroverted evidence of PW2, who was an eyewitness to the accident.

12. In order to establish the manner in which the accident occurred, the claimants examined PW2, an eyewitness to the occurrence. PW2 categorically deposed that the deceased had almost crossed the road when the offending vehicle, coming from the Hyderabad side towards Vijayawada, hit him. He further stated that the deceased was crossing the road at about 5:30 a.m. carrying a pot of water to reach his hut and that, when he was about to complete the crossing, the offending vehicle came at a high speed and hit him. According to PW2, the driver of the offending vehicle did not blow the horn, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and after hitting the deceased, fled from the scene of occurrence. Here, the aforesaid conduct on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is appearing to be more suspicious than the conduct of the deceased in causing the accident. The material particulars of his testimony remained unshaken in crossexamination. Nothing material was elicited from PW2 to discredit his version or to establish that the accident occurred on account of any negligence on the part of the deceased. Significantly, the respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in rebuttal, nor was the driver of the offending vehicle examined.

13. The learned Tribunal appears to have attributed contributory negligence to the deceased principally on the premise that a pedestrian, while crossing a National Highway, is required to look for vehicles approaching from both sides. There can be no quarrel with the general proposition that a pedestrian is also expected to exercise reasonable care while crossing a road. However, the mere fact that the deceased was crossing a National Highway cannot, by itself, lead to an inference of contributory negligence. Such a finding has to be founded upon evidence demonstrating that the deceased failed to exercise reasonable care and that such failure materially contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

14. In the present case, except the general assertion that the deceased was negligent in crossing the National Highway, there is no evidence to establish the manner in which he allegedly failed to exercise reasonable care. On the contrary, the specific evidence of PW2 is that the deceased had almost completed crossing the road when he was hit by the offending vehicle. The evidence further indicates that the offending vehicle was being driven without the driver blowing the horn and that the vehicle hit the deceased when he was nearing the completion of his crossing. These circumstances, coupled with the absence of any rebuttal evidence, do not furnish a sufficient basis for attributing negligence to the deceased.

15. At the same time, a driver proceeding on a National Highway is required to maintain due care and caution, keep a proper lookout and regulate the speed of the vehicle having regard to the surrounding circumstances and the presence of other road users. The fact that the road is a National Highway does not absolve the driver of such duty. In the present case, the evidence of PW2 is that the offending vehicle came from the Hyderabad side towards Vijayawada and hit the deceased when he was almost at the end of the crossing. The further evidence that the driver did not blow the horn and that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner assumes significance in assessing the manner of the accident.

16. The documentary evidence, particularly Exs.A1 and A2, also lends corroboration to the version of PW2. The police, upon investigation into the occurrence, registered the case and ultimately filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. There is no material in the crime record suggesting that the investigating agency found any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Though the FIR and charge sheet are not, by themselves, conclusive proof of negligence, they constitute relevant pieces of evidence and when considered along with the unshaken testimony of an eyewitness, cannot be brushed aside in the absence of contrary evidence.

17. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2018 SC 1900) and Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb (2025 SCC OnLine SC 497), also recognises the relevance of the police investigation and charge sheet in appreciating the issue of negligence in motor accident claims. In the present case, the said documentary evidence is further supported by the direct testimony of PW2. Therefore, once the claimants had placed such evidence on record, the allegation of contributory negligence required some cogent evidentiary foundation. Mere conjecture or the fact that the deceased was crossing a National Highway could not, by itself, justify apportionment of 50% negligence to him. In this connection, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meera Devi & Anr. vs H.R.T.C & Ors. (2014 (4) SCC 511), wherein it was observed as under:

               “To prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased scooterist. In the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of common law cannot be applied in the present case. We are, thus, of the view that the reasoning given by the High Court has no basis and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

18. It is also significant that, although PW2 was cross-examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, nothing material was elicited to establish that the deceased had suddenly entered the path of the vehicle, failed to take reasonable precautions or otherwise contributed to the accident. No independent witness was examined by the Insurance Company to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence. More importantly, the driver of the offending vehicle, who would have been the most competent person to speak about the manner of the accident, was not examined. Thus, there is no affirmative evidence on record from the respondents to displace the otherwise consistent and uncontroverted version of PW2.

19. In these circumstances, the finding of the learned Tribunal attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased is not supported by any cogent or convincing evidence. The said finding rests essentially on an assumption that, since the deceased was crossing a National Highway, he must necessarily have contributed to the occurrence. Such an inference, in the absence of evidence regarding the specific act or omission on the part of the deceased which contributed to the accident, cannot be sustained. The evidence on record, when considered as a whole, establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and does not warrant any deduction towards contributory negligence of the deceased.

20. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal apportioning negligence equally between the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle is set aside. The deceased cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence in the absence of cogent evidence establishing that his act or omission materially contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The negligence attributable to the accident shall, therefore, be fastened upon the driver of the offending vehicle.

21. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/-, without properly considering that he was earning his livelihood through private trade in groundnuts by supplying them to retail vendors at Hayathnagar. Hence, there was no basis either to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased or to disbelieve the claimed income in the absence of any rebuttal evidence.

22. Admittedly, the claimants did not file any authenticated document to substantiate the source of income pertaining to the deceased. As per the claim petition and the calculation memo filed by the claimants, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. Considering the year of the accident, the nature of occupation and the minimum wages prevalent during the relevant point of time, this Court is the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased be assessed at Rs.2,500/-. Since there are six claimants depending upon the earnings of the deceased, 1/4th of his earnings have to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Hence, the monthly contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.1,875/- (Rs.2,500/- - Rs.625/-).

23. Now coming to the age of the deceased and the relevant multiplier, the learned Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 30 years by placing reliance of Exs.A3 and A5 i.e., inquest report and autopsy report and rightly adopted the multiplier ‘17’. The said multiplier is also in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298),

24. Since the deceased was working as groundnut vendor and aged about 30 years, future prospects at 40% is required to be considered as per the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700). After addition of 40% towards future prospects, the contribution of the deceased towards his family comes to Rs.2,625/- (Rs.1,875/- + Rs.750/-) and the annual contribution comes to Rs.31,500/- (Rs.1,875/- x 12 months). After multiplying the annual contribution of the deceased to his family with the relevant multiplier ‘17’ comes to Rs.5,35,500/- (Rs.31,500/- x 17).

25. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Tribunal apart from computing the loss of contribution to the family of the deceased at Rs.2,04,000/-, opined that the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, without any basis. However, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,08,000/- only as compensation out of Rs.2,16,000/- on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in crossing the road on a National Highway without looking at the vehicles and thereby responsible for the accident.

26. The claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement) under conventional heads (loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1) as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2 supra). In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others ((2018) 18 SCC 130) and since the claimant Nos.2 to 4 lost their father at their young age, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10% enhancement) each under the head ‘parental consortium’.

27. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,44,500/- (Rs.5,35,500/- + Rs.77,000/- + Rs.1,32,000/-).

28. Though the claimants had restricted their claim to Rs.3,00,000/-, it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (2003 ACJ 12) that there is no restriction that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal or the Court should invariably be limited to the amount claimed in the claim petition, provided the claimant is otherwise found entitled to such compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record.

29. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Tribunal awarded rate of interest on the compensation at 9% per annum, which is appearing to be on higher side. This Court has been consistently awarding rate of interest at 7.5% in MACT cases. Thus, this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum.

CONCLUSION:

30. In view of the principle laid down in Meera Devi’s case and also considering aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 50% of the compensation on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on lesser side and in adopting the wrong multiplier. Thus, the claimants herein are entitled for entire compensation, which has to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be modified to the extent of above observations.

RESULT:

31. In the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.1,08,000/- to Rs.7,44,500/- ,which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.4,19,500/-, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are awarded Rs.75,000/- each and claimant Nos.5 and 6 are awarded Rs.50,000/- each. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, all the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares in the compensation amount awarded to them along with accrued interest without furnishing any security, however, subject to deposit of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.