Kommannapalli Annapoorna & Others vs Bhawani Bala & Others

V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J

The appellants are claimants in M.V.O.P.No.44 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Vizianagaram and the respondents are respondents in the said case.

For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of their son, namely, Kommanapalli Trinadha Rao, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.09.2010.

Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may briefly be stated as follows:

On 13.09.2010 at about 10.30 a.m. the deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle and when he reached Leprosy Hospital Junction, Salur, a lorry bearing registration No.CG 17H 0820 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the K.G.H., Visakhapatnam. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry, therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte. The 3rd respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased, coverage of insurance policy and validity of driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to gross negligence of the deceased, as such, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

Whether the pleaded accident was occurred resulting in death of the deceased viz., Kommanapalli Trinadha Rao, due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (lorry) bearing registration No.CG 17H 0820 by its driver/1st respondent?

Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

To what relief?

During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent/Insurance company, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B.1 was got marked.

At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.3,45,000/-towards compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimants preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

The ground urged by the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct multiplier to the case on hand.

Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

POINT Nos.1 and 2 : On considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.4, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, resulting in the death of the deceased. No appeal was preferred by the respondents against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

Coming to awarding of compensation, the Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons, arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- i.e., Rs.60,000/- per annum and having deducted 50% from out of the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased was a bachelor, rightly arrived the contribution to the family members of the deceased at Rs.30,000/-(Rs.60,000/- - Rs.30,000/-). But, the Tribunal erred in taking into consideration of the age of the father of the deceased instead of the age of the petitioner. The deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. The appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased is ‘18’, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (4) SCJ 91 and the loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x multiplier ‘18’). The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. As the compensation awarded under these two heads is just and reasonable, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under the said two heads by the Tribunal. Thus, in total, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,55,000/-.

The Tribunal in its order held that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, the crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance company by the 2nd respondent/owner under Ex.B.1-copy of policy, the policy was also in force as on the date of accident, there are no violations in the policy, and fixed the liability against all the respondents. No appeal was filed by the Insurance company against the said finding. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.5,55,000/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, both the claimants are entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with interest thereon equally. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.