HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
Cross-Objections
(SR) No.10826 of 2007
in
M.A.C.M.A.
No.52 OF 2007
and
M.A.C.M.A.No.52
OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The Claimant is no other than wife of
the deceased by name A.V. Papi Reddy, aged about 27 years filed the claim in M.V.O.P.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chairman of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-X Principal District Judge, Kurnool, (for
short, ‘Tribunal’), filed under Section 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the
claim of Rs.15,00,000/- by showing her in-laws as respondents 3 and 4 among 4
respondents including owner and Insurer (respondents 1 and 2) of the crime
tipper bearing No. AP 21 T 3499, for the accident dated 10.04.2004 while the
deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 21 G 6612 by the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the crime tipper coming in opposite
direction near Brahmamgari matam of Banaganapalli, dashed against him and
caused multiple injuries and thereafter
succumbed to injuries on the same day, since awarded by the tribunal of
Rs.2,88,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., in favour of the claimant along with respondents 3 and 4-the
parents of the deceased with apportionment, fixing liability against respondents
1 and 2 by its award dated 30.06.2006, impugning the
same, preferred the appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that
the compensation awarded by the tribunal is utterly low and unjust completely
ignoring untimely death of the deceased, that the tribunal failed to observe
that the deceased was aged 25 years and was working as LIC agent and earned
Rs.36,157/- in one financial year and had he been alive, he would have earned
considerable income through commission from LIC, that the tribunal failed to
see that besides commission from the LIC, the deceased was earning an income of
Rs.3,00,000/- per year from other sources of supervising agricultural land of
their joint family, fertilizer shop run under the name and style of Srinivasa
Fertilizers and Pesticides at Tangutur, wine shop run under the name and style
of Kerthana Wines at Nandyal and managing a tractor, that the tribunal failed
to see the fixed deposits done by him during his lifetime, that the tribunal
erred in taking very meager monthly income of Rs.2,000/- ignoring documentary
evidence and the multiplier 18 to be taken by the tribunal instead of 16, as
per the new Act, hence to allow the appeal by setting aside the award by
granting the compensation as prayed for. The learned counsel for the appellant
reiterated the same in the course of the hearing.
2.
The respondents 3 and 4-parents of the deceased filed Cross-Objections in this
appeal contending that the tribunal erred in holding as the cross-objectors are
entitled for Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively for the death of their
young son, that the tribunal should have seen that the deceased was aged about
25 years as on the date of accident and was an agent of insurance company and getting
huge commission from the corporation, in addition to it, he was maintaining a
pesticides and fertilizers shop apart from maintaining joint family properties
to a tune of 120 acres and as such earning much income but ignoring the above awarded
a meager amount of Rs.2,88,000/-, hence grant compensation as prayed for and
award more amount to them.
3. Whereas, it is the contention of
the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurer, for the owner of
the crime vehicle did not choose to
appear though served with notice taken as heard, that the tribunal is just and
for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere and there
is also contributory negligence on the part of the deceased when the accident
occurred while proceeding in opposite direction to the crime vehicle, hence to
dismiss the appeal.
4. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the
appeal.
5. Now the
points that arise for consideration in the appeal as well as in the
Cross-Objections in common are:
1.
Whether
there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, if so, with
what observations?
2.
Whether
the compensation awarded by the tribunal in O.P.No.59 of 2005 dated 30.08.2006
is utterly low and unjust and requires interference by this Court while sitting
in appeal and if so, with what compensation, what apportionment among the
claimant and the respondents 3 and 4-parents of deceased, what rate of interest
and with what observations?
3. To what result?
Point No.1:
6. Since
the P.W.1 Beat constable, the eye witness
deposed in support of Ex.A.1 First Information Report, Ex.A.5
chargehseet and also the Ex.A.3 postmortem report showing multiple injuries
including injuries from dragging on the road discloses that the accident was
the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver and for no fault of
the deceased rider of motor cycle, for this Court while sitting in appeal
against the reasoned finding of the tribunal, there is nothing to
interfere much less to find any
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
Point No.2:
7. Now coming to the quantum of compensation,
as can be seen from the evidence of Exs.X.1 and 2 certificates issued by the
LIC, showing as the deceased was LIC agent for one year in which year earnings
shown more than Rs.3000/- per month as commission. No doubt as pointed out by the learned
counsel for the Insurer, the business fluctuates and uncertain that has no basis
for the earnings of the deceased for no proof in that business or avocation and
even to claim any loss of agriculture he only supervised the lands and for the
supervisory loss, maximum of Rs.3,000/-
can be taken. The Ex.A.8 is the copy of petition in succession O.P.No.79 of
2004 under which the claimants and the parents of the deceased received an
amount lying in Fixed Deposit invested by the deceased with the bank shows the
means of the deceased equally from Ex.A.7 and A.9 sale deeds consideration
passed as a vendee therefrom, it is just to take minimum of Rs.3,900/- per
month as earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident dated 10.04.2004.
If 1/3rd deducted towards personal expenses, it comes to
Rs.2600/-x12x17(multiplier for the deceased aged 27 years) = Rs.5,30,400/-
besides Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife-claimant,
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, in
all comes to Rs.6,65,400/- which is just compensation for which the claimant is
entitled. Hence, the compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.2,88,000/- is
enhanced to Rs.6,65,400/- by confirming the interest at 7.5% p.a. with
apportionment of Rs.1,50,000/- each to the respondents 3 and 4-the parents of
deceased and the remaining to the wife-claimant. Accordingly, Point No.2 is
answered.
POINT No. -3:
8. In the
result, the appeal and cross-objections are partly allowed by enhancing the quantum
of compensation from Rs.2,88,000/- to Rs.6,65,400/- by confirming the rate of interest
at 7.5% p.a. with apportionment of Rs.1,50,000/- each to the respondents 3 and
4 and the remaining to the wife-claimant from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with
notice. The respondents 1 and 2(owner and Insurer of the crime vehicle) are
directed to deposit the amount enhanced herein (including the earlier amount of
Rs.2,88,000/-if not deposited) before the tribunal within one month from today.
On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant and respondents 3 and
4-parents of the deceased are permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order
as to costs in the appeal. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 17.12.2014
VVR
