Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 235 (AP)

Kalla Krishna Swamy v. S. Jagga Rao

2008-03-31

P.S.NARAYANA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned Counsel on record. 2. The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed praying for enhancement of compensation. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that though the compensation of Rs. l,60,000/- had been claimed, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court, it would be just and reasonable to grant compensation of Rsol,50,000/- taking the age of the deceased as 17 years. 4. On the contrary, learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents would submit that in the light of the reasons which had been recorded by the Tribunal below, the said findings not to be disturbed. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following points arise for consideration in this civil miscellaneous appeal: 1. Whether the quantum of compensation which had been awarded by the Tribunal below can be said to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? Point No.1: 6. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in OP No.131 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 7. The O.P. was filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. l,60,000/- against respondents 1 to 3 stating that on 27.8.1998 while Kalla Pydiraju who is the son of petitioners 1 and 2 was going on his cycle to his house, the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 497 being driven by R1 driver, came from Jami side in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Pydiraju, as a result of which he sustained both simple and grievous injuries and later succumbed to the injuries and that after post-mortem the dead body of the said Kalla Pydiraju was handed over to the petitioners 1 and 2. Hence the claim for compensation. 8. Respondent No.3 filed counter, which was adopted by respondents 1 and 2 by filing adoption memo denying the allegations rash and negligent driving. 9. On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled : 1. Whether the accident and the death of the deceased viz., Kola Pydiraju are due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 497 by Rl driver? 2. 9. On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled : 1. Whether the accident and the death of the deceased viz., Kola Pydiraju are due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 497 by Rl driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, and if so, from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief? 10. On behalf of the claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R W.1 was examined. The learned Judge recorded reasons in detail commencing from paragraphs 6 to 12 and ultimately came to the conclusion that awarding of compensation of Rs.80,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 12% would be just and proper. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal had been preferred. 11. The learned Judge recorded reasons and came to the conclusion that if the age of the deceased is to be taken as 17 years he should be treated as child and further recorded certain reasons and ultimately fixed the quantum of compensation. The Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Shanti Bai v. Charan Singh, AIR 1999 SC 845 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender and others, 2007 (1) ALD 1 (SC) = 2007 (1) ALT 26 (SC). 12. The age of the deceased is not in serious controversy. If the second schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to be applied, the just compensation would be Rs. l,50,000/- since it is the case of death. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the compensation of Rs.80,000/- is hereby modified to Rs.1,50,000/ - (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only), but the interest of 12% granted is hereby modified to 7.5%. 13. Accordingly the award made by the Tribunal below is hereby modified from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.l,50,000/- and interest is also modified from 12% to 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. Point No.2 14. The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.