Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 902 (AP)

Gavara Chintalamma v. S. Sathaiah

2014-07-18

A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

body2014
Judgment Dissatisfied with the award of Rs. 90,000/- towards compensation, as against Rs. 2,00,000/- claimed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, seeking enhancement of the same, claimant preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal against the order, dated 26.2.2004, in MVOP No. 660 of 2003, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vishakapatnam (for short "Tribunal"). 2. The appellants herein are the claimants, while respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are owner of the lorry bearing No. AP16-T-4228 that involved in the accident and its insurer, respectively, are respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal and G. Ramesh, who died in the accident, as "deceased." 4. The claimants are parents of the deceased. The facts in brief are that the deceased was working as Supervisor in B.R.R. Poultry Farm in Sabbavaram Village and on 18.2.2003 at about 10.30 a.m., while he was proceeding to poultry farm on his bicycle, on the left side of the road, a lorry bearing No. AP-16-T-4228, driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, coming from Anakapalle side, without blowing the horn, hit him, due to which, he fell down and the lorry dragged him to a distance of 15 feet, as a result, he sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sabbavaram and from there to K.G. Hospital, Vishakapatnam, where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Even the Station House Officer, Sabbavaram, registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. and later it was altered to one under Section 304-A I.P.C. The claimants sought to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from respondents 1 and 2, owner and insurer of the lorry. 5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1, owner of the lorry that involved in the accident, remained ex-parte. 6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter requiring the claimants to prove the material allegations made in the petition occurring and that the claim is excessive and the claimants are not entitled to the same and finally sought to dismiss the claim. 7. The Tribunal framed three issues in the direction of fixing liability for the accident. 6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter requiring the claimants to prove the material allegations made in the petition occurring and that the claim is excessive and the claimants are not entitled to the same and finally sought to dismiss the claim. 7. The Tribunal framed three issues in the direction of fixing liability for the accident. The 1st claimant examined herself as PW1 and one J. Ramulaiah as PW2, an eyewitness to the occurrence, and exhibited five (5) documents as Exs.A1 to A5 to prove their entitlement for the compensation claimed. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. 8. The Tribunal, on appraisal of evidence on record, on issue No. 1, found that only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the accident has taken place resulting in death of the deceased. 9. The Tribunal, on issue No. 2, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 12,000/- per annum, and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses of the deceased, arrived at Rs. 8,000/- as contribution of the deceased to his family, and by applying multiplier 11', arrived at Rs. 88,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x multiplier 11) towards loss of dependency, awarded the same, besides Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and, thus, granted a total sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 10. It is that order, which is challenged in the instant appeal by the claimants contending that the compensation awarded is very meagre and without assigning any reasons, the Tribunal has discarded monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- claimed by the claimants that has been the only ground agitated in the grounds of appeal. 11. Heard Smt. Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned Counsel for the claimants (appellants), and perused the material on record. 12. Due to non-compliance of the order of this Court, dated 24.2.2011, the appeal against respondent No. 1, owner of the lorry that involved in the accident, was dismissed for default, by the order of this Court, dated 2.9.2011. Further, in spite of service of notice on the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, none appeared on its behalf. 13. 12. Due to non-compliance of the order of this Court, dated 24.2.2011, the appeal against respondent No. 1, owner of the lorry that involved in the accident, was dismissed for default, by the order of this Court, dated 2.9.2011. Further, in spite of service of notice on the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, none appeared on its behalf. 13. However, dismissal of the appeal for default against respondent No. 1, owner of the lorry that involved in the accident, is of no consequence since he remained ex-parte and allowed the decree to be passed against him by the Tribunal. 14. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the claimants that the deceased was working as Supervisor in B.R.R. Poultry Farm, Sabbavaram, and the same is also recorded in Ex.A5 charge-sheet filed before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ongole, and PW1 has specifically asserted the same. 15. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 19 years, which finding is recorded based on appreciation of evidence and does not warrant interference and also the relevant multiplier would be 18'. Even the deceased, died in unmarried status is also not in dispute. So, only as regards the income, there is some sort of dispute as the learned Counsel for the claimants contends that the deceased was working as Supervisor in B.R.R. Poultry Farm at Sabbavaram and being aged 19 years, must be drawing Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, no documentary proof is forthcoming in that regard. Even otherwise, if not Rs. 2,000/-, in case, it is held that it suffers from exaggeration, at least Rs. 1,500/- as monthly income of the deceased can be arrived at and if half of it is deducted therefrom towards his personal expenses, it works out to again Rs. 750/- per month and Rs. 9,000/- per annum and if multiplier 18' is applied, it works out to Rs. 1,62,000/- (Rs. 9,000/- x multiplier 18) to which the claimants are entitled towards loss of dependency and the same is accordingly awarded. The claimants are also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses as against Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. 16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,82,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty two thousand only) as against Rs. 90,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal, and the same is accordingly awarded. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses as against Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. 16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,82,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty two thousand only) as against Rs. 90,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal, and the same is accordingly awarded. The claimants are entitled to interest on the compensation of Rs. 90,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal, at 9% per annum, and on the enhanced compensation of Rs. 92,000/- at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till realisation, as per the decision of the apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013(4) ALT 35. 17. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part modifying the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, by enhancing the compensation as stated supra. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal stand disposed of.