Andhra Pradesh High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant challenging the award dated 26-04-2024, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Court), Ongole, a division bench of Ravi Nath Tilhari and Challa Gunaranjan, JJ., dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits and upheld the compensation granted by MACT.
The appellant is the son of the deceased late Bodapati Satyanarayana and thus, related to the claimants. The claimants in the case sought compensation for the death of Bodapati Satyanarayana, who succumbed to injuries in a road accident on 02-04-2017. The deceased, aged 65, was returning home on his motorcycle when the offending vehicle, a Tata Tiago car allegedly driven rashly and negligently, collided with him. As a result, he suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot.
The claimants, comprising the deceased’s widow, son, and two daughters, filed the claim against the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and its insurer, the National Insurance Company Limited. The insurer opposed the claim, arguing that the deceased contributed to the accident by not wearing a helmet and riding without a valid driving license. Furthermore, the insurer contended that the accident was not reported properly and alleged collusion between the insured and the claimants to defraud the insurance company.
The appellant, on the other hand, raised serious allegations of foul play. The Counsel for appellants suspected a criminal conspiracy involving the husband of one of the claimants (his sister) and the driver of the offending car, asserting that the accident was a premeditated act of murder disguised as a vehicular collision. He filed complaints with the police, but they were closed after investigation. Dissatisfied, he sought an impartial probe via a writ petition, which was pending at the time of the Tribunal’s judgment. The appellant argued that these facts were intentionally suppressed by the claimants and sought the dismissal of the petition. The Tribunal held that the appellant’s testimony and allegations lacked substance and failed to disprove the claimants’ case. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹32,09,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum, to be shared among the claimants. Notably, the appellant was also allotted ₹2,00,000 as part of the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal was filed.
The Court considered the submissions made and reviewed the material on record, including the judgment in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (2000) 5 SCC 113 wherein the Supreme Court held that if the cause of death is incidental to a felonious act involving the use of a motor vehicle, it could qualify as an accidental death under the Motor Vehicles Act. Applying this principle, the Court noted that a causal relationship between the use of the vehicle and the accident must exist, even if it is not direct or immediate.
The Court further noted that in the present case, the Tribunal recorded a specific finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s owner-cum-driver. The evidence of eyewitnesses and other records corroborated this conclusion. Further, the appellant’s allegations of murder were dismissed during police investigations, and a subsequent writ petition for reinvestigation by CBCID was also rejected. The Court emphasized that once the driver was acquitted following a full-fledged trial, there was no basis for alleging foul play. It was also not disputed by the appellant that the death arose out of the use of the motor vehicle, thereby satisfying the causal link required under the law.
The Court concluded that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rightly entertained the claim and awarded compensation, as the death of the deceased was clearly linked to the motor vehicle accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The appellant’s objections were dismissed, and the maintainability of the claim petition was upheld. As the amount of compensation was not in question, the Court refrained from making any observations on that aspect.
[Bodapati Thatarao v. Bodapati Ramasubbamma, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5707, decided on 17-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Soora Venkata Sainath
