AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kempanna, J.—This is claimants'' appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the death of D.N.Yashodha in a motor accident. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal would be referred to by their rankings as they are arrayed in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
The claimants who are the husband and daughter of the deceased D.N. Yashodha instituted the claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a motor accident. It is their case that the deceased Yashodha was aged 45 years and was proprietor of M/s. Raghavendra Offset Printers and Xerox situated at Cheluru Village in Bagepalli Taluk of Chikballapur District. She was earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. On the date of the accident the deceased boarded the bus bearing No AP-1.1-Z-4320 along with her husband and daughter at Cheluru village in order to go to Thirumala. When the said bus was near Krishnapuram Hanijanawada near Rangampeta situated on Pileru. Tirupathi Read i.e. NH.205 the bus bearing No. AP-I1-Z-2055 driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and dashed against the bus in which the deceased and claimants were travelling. On account of the impact, the deceased sustained severe injuries apart from others, who were travelling in the bus. She was shifted to SVRR Government Hospital, Thirupathi where she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident at about 10.30 p.m. It is their case that the respondent/Corporation being the owner of the offending bus are liable to pay the compensation as claimed in the petition.
After service of notice the respondent appeared and contested the petition. They contended that the accident has not taken place on account of negligence of the driver of the bus bearing Nc.AP-22-Z2055. On the other hand, it was on account of negligence of the driver of the bus in which the deceased was travelling. Accordingly, they contended that as the accident has not taken place due to the fault of the driver of their bus they are not liable to pay any compensation and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
The Tribunal on the basis of the above pleadings framed the following issues:-
Whether the petitioners prove that Smt. D. N. Yashodha W/o. M. C. Chalapathy died in an accident has taken place on 30.07.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-2065 at Krishnapuram Maadigawada near A. Rangampeta on NH205 Road?
How much compensation the petitioners are entitle and from whom?
The claimants in support of their case got examined the first claimant who is the husband of the deceased as PW.1. They produced 10 documents which came to be marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. The respondent did not lead any oral evidence nor produced any documents.
The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record held that the accident in question has taken place on account of actionable negligence of the driver of the bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-2065. Further looking into the material on record it took the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased applying the multiplier of 15 having regard to the age of the deceased, it awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further it awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus in all, a sum of Rs. 3,83,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It further saddled the liability of payment of compensation on the respondent/Corporation.
The appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation are in appeal before this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding commensurate compensation to the claimants under the head loss of dependency. In this connection, he contended that though the claimants had placed clinching material on record more particularly, the statement of accounts of the deceased In respect of her business to show that she was earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month, ignoring the same the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month only and has awarded a lesser compensation towards loss of dependency. He further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side, hence, a case for enhancement is made out.
Having regard to the contention urged and the materials now on record, the point that arises for our consideration is:-
Whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement?
The accident having taken place on account of actionable negligence of the driver of the offending bus, the deceased having sustained injuries in the accident and having succumbed to the same and the liability of the Corporation are not disputed before us. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged 45 years and was proprietor of Sri. Raghavendra Offset Printers and Xerox. She was earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. In support of their case to prove that the deceased was the proprietor of Sri. Raghavendra Offset Printers and Xerox and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month they have produced the license and account extracts which are at Exs.P.9 and P.10. A perusal of Ex.P.9 discloses that the deceased has been granted license to run aforesaid Sri. Raghavendra Offset Printers and Xerox at Cheluru Village. Further a perusal of. Ex.P.10-account extracts reveals that the deceased has raised a loan to the tune of Rs. 49,000/- to run her establishment. The same has been raised in the year 2006. It further reveals that out of the said loan amount, the deceased has discharged an amount of Rs. 38,000/- and odd by the end of the year 2008 Le for the period of two years. No other substantive material is placed on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. The Tribunal on appreciation of the material taking into consideration that the establishment of the deceased was in a village has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. In our view, the said income of the deceased per month determined by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
Further the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1 / 3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and has taken annual loss of dependency at Rs. 24,000/-. It has correctly applied the multiplier of 15 having regard to the age of the deceased, which is not disputed to before us. Therefore, the amount awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency in a sum of RS.3,60,000/- is just and proper, which in our view does not call for any interference.
Further in the facts and circumstances, as there is nothing to show that the claimant who is the husband of the deceased has no source of income and the business establishment of the deceased is closed, the compensation awarded under conventional heads as well as loss of dependency being just and proper, it does not call for interference. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed having not been admitted.