Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 687 (AP)

Y. Sivarama Sastri v. Nayeem Khan

2000-09-08

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2000
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 3,85,000 towards compensation jointly and severally and limiting the liability of the respondent No. 3, insurance company to Rs. 1,50,000. The appellants herein are the claimants, i. e. , father and daughter of the deceased Y. Ramakrishna who met with an unfortunate accident on 7. 8. 1989 at 8. 10 a. m. and died. The claimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 stating that the deceased had a brilliant educational career who was a Research Officer working in the national Institute of Nutrition at Hyderabad and submitted that the deceased was 30 years old only on the date of accident and that in the normal course he would have risen to the post of Director of the national Nutrition Institute. The brief facts of the case are as follows: that on 7. 8. 1989 the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. AHY 3537 and when he reached near the national Police Academy a lorry bearing no. ATT 7095 belonging to the respondent no. 1 driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle and caused instantaneous death of the deceased. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 filed counter admitting the accident and involvement of the said lorry and stated that the same was insured with respondent No. 3 and attributed negligence on the deceased himself and stated that the driver of the lorry took all the necessary care and precaution while driving the vehicle and that since the deceased had overtaken the lorry and that he himself was responsible for the said accident and that the driver of the lorry tried his best to avoid the accident. It is also stated that he is not liable to pay the compensation and that the compensation claimed is excessive and also disputed the age and earnings of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3 insurance company filed counter admitting the accident occurred on 7. 8. It is also stated that he is not liable to pay the compensation and that the compensation claimed is excessive and also disputed the age and earnings of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3 insurance company filed counter admitting the accident occurred on 7. 8. 1989 involving the lorry in question and stated that the accident might have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and also admitted that the said lorry was insured with the respondent No. 3 and stated that the maximum limit of the liability of the respondent No. 3 under the policy is rs. 1,50,000 only. It is also stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the lorry did not possess the valid licence and that the compensation claimed is excessive. ( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. With regard to the first issue as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question, the claimants adduced both oral and documentary evidence by examining PW 1 to PW 4 and also got marked documents Exhs. A-l to A-12 and exhs. X-1 to X-3. There was no evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 3 insurance company examined RW 1 and also marked documents Exhs. B-1 to B-5, ( 5 ) THE Tribunal considered the evidence on record both oral and documentary and rightly believed the version of PW 3 who is an independent eyewitness and who narrated the cause of accident and specifically denied the suggestion that the deceased had overtaken the lorry and was responsible for the accident and stated that he witnessed the accident from a distance of 30 feet from the western margin. The tribunal took credence to the version of PW 3 who is an important and independent eyewitness and after considering both the oral and documentary evidence has rightly held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. ( 6 ) AS regards the determination of just compensation under the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act is concerned, the tribunal though adopted the criteria of multiplier method but has failed to follow the judgment of the Apex Court in U. P. State road Trans. Corpn. ( 6 ) AS regards the determination of just compensation under the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act is concerned, the tribunal though adopted the criteria of multiplier method but has failed to follow the judgment of the Apex Court in U. P. State road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) and has also failed in not considering the future prospects of the deceased as per the judgment of the Apex court in General Manager, Kerala State road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC ). In the instant case the deceased was a young and bright Research officer having brilliant academic career at his disposal and the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs. 1,600 after deducting 1/3rd, i. e. , rs. 400 (Sic.) towards personal expenses and determining the compensation. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for appellant vehemently contended that the determination made by the Tribunal is not based on relevant criteria and that the Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased and committed an error in limiting the liability of the insurance company as per the terms of the policy at Rs. 1,50,000 without noticing the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which has removed the hurdle and the compensation has become limitless and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Padma \srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1982 acj 191 (SC), the liability of the insurer arises from the date of accident on which day the cause of action accrues. The Apex court further held as follows: " the liability must mean liability as determinable under Chapter VIII at the relevant time, that is to say, at the time when the liability arises. Since the liability of the insurer to pay a claim under a motor accident policy arises on the occurrence of the accident and not until then one must necessarily have regard to the state of the law obtaining at the time of the accident for determining the extent of the insurer s liability under a statutory policy. In this behalf, the governing factor for determining the application of the appropriate law is not the date on which the policy of insurance came into force but the date on which the cause of action accrued for enforcing liability arising under the terms of the policy. In this behalf, the governing factor for determining the application of the appropriate law is not the date on which the policy of insurance came into force but the date on which the cause of action accrued for enforcing liability arising under the terms of the policy. " ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the award of the Tribunal fixing the liability of the insurance company to an extent of Rs. 1,50,000 is hereby set aside. ( 9 ) THE deceased at the time of the accident was aged 30 years as per the secondary School Certificate and was working as research Officer and drawing a salary in the time-scale of Rs. 2,000-60-2,300-EB-75-3,200. As per the evidence of PW 2 who is a co-employee of the deceased who stated that the deceased would have got the promotions and would have reached to the level of Deputy Director. ( 10 ) IN view of the above background and in view of the evidence of PW 2 and having regard to the future prospects and advancement in life and career of the deceased as he was at the prime age of 30 years at the time of accident, we are of the opinion that the proper and approximate earning of the deceased shall be fixed at rs. 3,500 per month and 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses and the 2/3rd is earmarked towards monthly contribution to his family which approximately comes to Rs. 2,300 and annually it comes to Rs. 27,600. The Claims Tribunal has taken a right multiplier of 16, applying the same, the loss of dependency is awarded as Rs. 4,41,600 (i. e. , Rs. 27,600 x 16 = rs. 4,41,600), apart from this conventional sum of Rs. 15,000 is hereby awarded towards consortium and a further sum of rs. 15,000 is awarded towards loss to estate. Thus, the award of the Tribunal is hereby modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,85,000 to Rs. 4,71,600 (rupees four lakh seventy-one thousand six hundred only) jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The apportionment made by the Tribunal shall operate. ( 11 ) IN result, the appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.