Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 634 (AP)

Gopanaboyina Punna Rao v. G. Ankineedu Prasad

2003-04-25

B.PRAKASH RAO

body2003
( 1 ) THE claimants are the appellants herein who seek enhancement of the compensation aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in O. P. No. 4 of 1993, dt. 6-10-1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ongole. ( 2 ) THE case of the claimants is that they are the parents, sisters and brother of the deceased Gopanaboyina Subbarao respectively, that on 1-7-1992 while the deceased, who is an ITI certificate holder and awaiting the employment having applied for several recruitments, was going as a labourer in a lorry bearing No. AP 27v 0045, and while the same was proceeding to santhamaguluru village, the driver has driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and ultimately the lorry was turned turtle and fell down in a canal, as a result, the deceased sustained serious multiple injuries and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. Hence the claim. The said claim was contested by the insurance company while the owner remained ex parte. It was contended by the insurance company that there was no rash or negligence on the part of the driver and that the claim is on a higher side. After framing of the issues, the claimants examined p. W. 1 on their behalf and marked Exs. A-1 to a-6. On behalf of the insurance company, ex. B-1 policy was marked without adducing any oral evidence. Considering the same, the court below held that there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 500/- and after making necessary deductions, the court below applied the multiplier 17. 5 and thus awarded an amount of Rs. 66,000/- towards compensation with interest at 12% p. a. from the date of application. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants contended that having regard to the fact the deceased was an ITI certificate holder and awaiting the employment and in the meanwhile attending to the labour work and therefore the amount as granted by the court below is very meagre and the same is even less than the minimum wage. ( 4 ) THE said contentions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents by the learned Standing Counsel that whatever amount arrived at by the court below is quite reasonable and just and do not warrant any interference. ( 4 ) THE said contentions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents by the learned Standing Counsel that whatever amount arrived at by the court below is quite reasonable and just and do not warrant any interference. ( 5 ) HAVING considered the submissions made on either side and on a perusal of the record, there cannot be any challenge as such in regard to the question as to the rash land negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and therefore the said question need not be gone into. ( 6 ) THERE is no denial to the fact that the deceased was an ITI certificate holder, as the same is evident from Ex. A-4 and also other merit and educational certificates in exs. A-3, A-5 and A-6. It was also the case of the claimants that he has already applied for recruitment in various places and awaiting the employment. Meanwhile, he was attending to the cooly work. The deceased was unmarried and aged about 21 years. Therefore, by taking the age of the mother of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case is 15 and not 17. 5 as adopted by the court below. However, the court below was not right in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 500/ -. In the circumstances, it can safely be assessed at Rs. 1500/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family can be taken as Rs. 1,000/-and thus his annual income comes to Rs. 12,000/- and if we apply the multiplier 15 , the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,80,000/ -. (Rs. 12,000/- x 12 ). ( 7 ) IN view of the same, it has to be held that the claimants would be entitled to rs. 1,80,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the court below has awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. However, no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate. It has to be held that the claimants are entitled to another sum of Rs. 15,000 /- towards loss of Estate. In all the claimants would be entitled to rs. 2,10,000/- towards compensation, instead of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. However, no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate. It has to be held that the claimants are entitled to another sum of Rs. 15,000 /- towards loss of Estate. In all the claimants would be entitled to rs. 2,10,000/- towards compensation, instead of Rs. 66,000/- as awarded by the court below and the claimants are entitled to interest at 9% p. a. on the enhanced amount from the date of application. ( 8 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. --- *** --- .Andhra Pradesh High Court (APRIL 25, 2003) 2003 (TLS)428289 2003-Andhwr-2-384 Gopanaboyina Punna Rao Vs. G. Ankineedu Prasad ( 1 ) THE claimants are the appellants herein who seek enhancement of the compensation aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in O. P. No. 4 of 1993, dt. 6-10-1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ongole. ( 2 ) THE case of the claimants is that they are the parents, sisters and brother of the deceased Gopanaboyina Subbarao respectively, that on 1-7-1992 while the deceased, who is an ITI certificate holder and awaiting the employment having applied for several recruitments, was going as a labourer in a lorry bearing No. AP 27v 0045, and while the same was proceeding to santhamaguluru village, the driver has driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and ultimately the lorry was turned turtle and fell down in a canal, as a result, the deceased sustained serious multiple injuries and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. Hence the claim. The said claim was contested by the insurance company while the owner remained ex parte. It was contended by the insurance company that there was no rash or negligence on the part of the driver and that the claim is on a higher side. After framing of the issues, the claimants examined p. W. 1 on their behalf and marked Exs. A-1 to a-6. On behalf of the insurance company, ex. B-1 policy was marked without adducing any oral evidence. Considering the same, the court below held that there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 500/- and after making necessary deductions, the court below applied the multiplier 17. 5 and thus awarded an amount of Rs. B-1 policy was marked without adducing any oral evidence. Considering the same, the court below held that there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 500/- and after making necessary deductions, the court below applied the multiplier 17. 5 and thus awarded an amount of Rs. 66,000/- towards compensation with interest at 12% p. a. from the date of application. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants contended that having regard to the fact the deceased was an ITI certificate holder and awaiting the employment and in the meanwhile attending to the labour work and therefore the amount as granted by the court below is very meagre and the same is even less than the minimum wage. ( 4 ) THE said contentions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents by the learned Standing Counsel that whatever amount arrived at by the court below is quite reasonable and just and do not warrant any interference. ( 5 ) HAVING considered the submissions made on either side and on a perusal of the record, there cannot be any challenge as such in regard to the question as to the rash land negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and therefore the said question need not be gone into. ( 6 ) THERE is no denial to the fact that the deceased was an ITI certificate holder, as the same is evident from Ex. A-4 and also other merit and educational certificates in exs. A-3, A-5 and A-6. It was also the case of the claimants that he has already applied for recruitment in various places and awaiting the employment. Meanwhile, he was attending to the cooly work. The deceased was unmarried and aged about 21 years. Therefore, by taking the age of the mother of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case is 15 and not 17. 5 as adopted by the court below. However, the court below was not right in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 500/ -. In the circumstances, it can safely be assessed at Rs. 1500/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family can be taken as Rs. 1,000/-and thus his annual income comes to Rs. However, the court below was not right in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 500/ -. In the circumstances, it can safely be assessed at Rs. 1500/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family can be taken as Rs. 1,000/-and thus his annual income comes to Rs. 12,000/- and if we apply the multiplier 15 , the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,80,000/ -. (Rs. 12,000/- x 12 ). ( 7 ) IN view of the same, it has to be held that the claimants would be entitled to rs. 1,80,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the court below has awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. However, no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate. It has to be held that the claimants are entitled to another sum of Rs. 15,000 /- towards loss of Estate. In all the claimants would be entitled to rs. 2,10,000/- towards compensation, instead of Rs. 66,000/- as awarded by the court below and the claimants are entitled to interest at 9% p. a. on the enhanced amount from the date of application. ( 8 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.