Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 274 (AP)

Madireddy Seetha Ramayya v. R. Narayana

2008-04-15

P.S.NARAYANA

body2008
JUDGMENT :- Heard the Counsel. 2. The claimants being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation on the ground that the same is on the lower side had preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal. The Counsel on record made certain submissions - the learned Counsel representing the appellants contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below cannot be said to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the contrary the learned Standing Counsel representing the Insurance Company/2nd respondent maintaining otherwise that in the light of the reasons recorded in detail, the findings as such cannot be found fault. 3. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in M.V.O.P. No.1638/ 2000 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 4. It was averred in the O.P. that on 27.1.2000 at about 12.45 p.m. while the deceased along with her family members i.e., her husband, daughter, son-in-law and grand children was travelling in their Maruthi Car bearing No.A.P. 31 P 2255 at Chinna Govindammal, near Vellore, the lorry bearing No.MDJ 5257, driven by the 1st respondent from Vellore side and loaded with sugarcane came in the opposite direction and dashed against the said Maruthi Car. As a result of the accident, the deceased, his wife, daughter, son-in-law and grand children died on the spot. Immediately, the deceased and other persons were shifted to Vellore Government Hospital where post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 28.1.2000. The accident occurred absolutely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the lorry. A case in Cr.No.44/2000 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station, Pallikonda against the 1st respondent. It was further averred that the deceased used to do tailoring and embroidery work and used to earn a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month and was contributing her entire salary to maintain the petitioners. The petitioners are totally depending upon the earnings of the deceased and after the death of the deceased, the petitioners had lost their financial support and thereby they had lost their livelihood. The 2nd petitioner who is the second son of the deceased is deaf and dumb and partially blind. On account of his physical disability, he is incapacitated to do work and on account of that he is totally dependent on the earnings of his deceased. The 2nd petitioner who is the second son of the deceased is deaf and dumb and partially blind. On account of his physical disability, he is incapacitated to do work and on account of that he is totally dependent on the earnings of his deceased. The 1st respondent is the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said offending vehicle and as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the claim of the petitioners. It was averred in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent i.e., the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. The petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings as the Insurance Company of the Maruthi Car involved in the accident also is a necessary party to the proceedings. Since the accident occurred due to the collision of two vehicles, the rashness and negligence has to be apportioned between the drivers of both the vehicles. The petitioners have to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid licence and other vehicular documents. The offending vehicle was not insured with the 2nd respondent-Company. The claim of the petitioners is highly excessive and exaggerative. 6. On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal below : 1. Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and whether it resulted in the death of the victim ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so to what amount ? 3. Which of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation ? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1, the 1st petitioner was examined and Exs.A.l and A.2 were marked. None had been examined on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal below recorded reasons in detail and came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest. Except the evidence of PW.1, no other acceptable evidence relating to the income of the deceased had been placed before the Court. None had been examined on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal below recorded reasons in detail and came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest. Except the evidence of PW.1, no other acceptable evidence relating to the income of the deceased had been placed before the Court. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, the Tribunal below came to the conclusion that granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest would be just and reasonable. However, in the light of the nature of the grounds raised and the contentions advanced before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that granting of compensation of Rs.50,000/in the facts and circumstances of the case may not be just. But it is needless to say that this Court cannot grant enhanced compensation in the absence of any further acceptable evidence relating to the income of the deceased. 7. In the light of the same, the impugned award is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal below to permit both the parties to let in further evidence in this regard and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 8. At this stage, the Counsel for the appellants prayed for expeditious disposal of the matter. Inasmuch as an order of remand is made, the Tribunal below to give top priority for early disposal of the matter.