HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.162 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The 2nd respondent-Insurer
among the two respondents including the 1st respondent-owner of the
crime auto bearing No.AP36 V 9613 in the claim petition O.P.No.640 of 2005 on
the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal–cum-District Judge, Warangal(for short, ‘Tribunal’) in
M.V.O.P.No.640 of 2005 dated 25.08.2006, preferred the appeal against the
claimants i.e. wife, minor sons, physically handicapped sister and parents of
deceased by name Halavath Raju, impugning the quantum of compensation awarded
by the tribunal of Rs.6,28,000/- with interest at 7.5%p.a. as excessive by
contending that the tribunal went wrong in taking Rs.5,000/- p.m. as earnings
of the deceased allegedly weaver-cum-agriculturist for no proof of agricultural
lands. Hence, compensation to be reduced to a just sum. The learned counsel for
the Insurer reiterated the said contention.
2.
1st respondent-owner contested before the tribunal not served as 7th
respondent to the appeal and from which the dismissal of appeal against him no
way fatal to the maintainability, hence, taken up for hearing.
3. It is the
contention of the claimants as respondent Nos. 1 to 6 that the award of the
tribunal is just and for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to
reduce the quantum arrived by the tribunal, 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 are:
1.
Whether
the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and
requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award
and if so to what extent to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of
interest?
2.
To what result?
POINT-1:
6.
The fact that the
accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
crime auto of the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd
respondent while the deceased was traveling therein sustained injuries and met
with death is not in dispute for the purpose of the appeal but for the quantum
of compensation awarded is disputed in the appeal as excessive. Now coming to
the quantum of compensation, Ex.A.1 FIR not to mention Ex.A.2 inquest report
speaks besides evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 the avocation of the deceased as weaver,
for proving the avocation. There is
nothing to give credence to the evidence of the P.W.2 of deceased was working
under him for no entity of him established much less with any licence much less
showing the deceased as employee in the rolls and any accounts etc., of payment
of any remuneration to such amount of Rs.6,000/-p.m. Thus for want of evidence regarding the
earnings of the deceased, as laid down by the Apex Court in Latha
Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar[1]
that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably
estimated at Rs.3,000/- p.m. for any non-earning member and with
proportionate increase in the cost of living index after said expression in the
four years to the date of accident 05.03.2005, it can be taken at Rs.3,400/-
p.m. and the claimants are six in number even among them but for the sister(4th
claimant) major not dependant on deceased and other 5 are dependants on the
deceased and as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the personal expenses deduction is only 1/4th
and not 1/3rd. If 1/4th
deducted therefrom it comes to
Rs.2,550/- p.m. x 12 x from age of deceased between 32 to 35 as per Sarla
verma(supra), multiplier applicable is 16 which comes to Rs.4,89,600/-, for loss
of consortium entitled by the 1st claimant is Rs.1,00,000/-, for
funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/-, loss of estate minimum of Rs.5,000/- and care and
guidance to the two minor children even at Rs.10,000/- each in all comes to
Rs.6,39,600/- and what the tribunal awarded of Rs.6,28,000/- thereby is no way
excessive. Thus, there is nothing to interfere with the award of the tribunal.
Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.
Point No.2:
7. In
the result, appeal is dismissed with no costs.
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 19-02-2014
VVR
