AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—There is delay of 146 days in filing the appeal. LA. No. 1 of 2005 is for condonation of delay. Respondents have not filed objections. In the circumstances, the delay in filing is condoned and the matter is heard for final disposal.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 had instituted a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (''the Act'' for short), in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Bangalore contending that on 19.6.1998, one Babu Khan alias Babu was travelling along with full load of cattle from Gangavathi to Bangalore in lorry bearing No. KA 04-692 and the said lorry dashed against another lorry which was coming from the opposite direction and thereafter dashed against a parapet wall of the bridge and fell into a dry tank upside down resulting in death of Babu Khan alias Babu and death and injuries to the cattle. The claim petition was contested by the respondents therein. Issues were framed directing the petitioners to prove whether accident occurred on 19.6.98 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. KA 04-692 and that Babu Khan alias Babu having sustained severe injuries as a result of the accident, passed away and petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation. Considering the evidence on record, the petition was allowed in part. While awarding compensation, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,85,000 for death of Babu Khan alias Babu and a sum of Rs. 95,000 towards the death of 19 cattle at Rs. 5,000 per cattle and in respect of injuries to 10 cattle at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per cattle amounting to Rs. 30,000. This appeal has been filed by the insurer of the offending lorry KA 04-692.
Mr. A.N. Krishnaswamy, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised two contentions. Firstly, he contended that the policy of insurance issued u/s 147 of the Act is not required to cover the risk of goods carried in the goods carriage as the risk of owner of goods alone is required to be covered and not the risk of goods carried in the vehicle. In that view of the matter, awarding of Rs. 95,000 for the death of 19 cattle and Rs. 30,000 for injuries to the other cattle is illegal. Secondly, he contended that Tribunal has committed an error in awarding interest at 8 per cent per annum much against the decision of this court in the case of A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, . Learned counsel submitted that the amount awarded by learned Tribunal in terms of the impugned award is highly excessive, at least by a sum of Rs. 2,75,000 and hence interference is called for.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after perusing the certified copies of the record of the trial court made available for my perusal, I do not find there is excess award passed by the Tribunal. It is only a question of the amount awarded being properly apportioned under the different heads. No doubt the insurer is not required to cover the risk of goods carried in a goods carriage as the risk of owner of goods alone is required to be covered u/s 147 of the Act and not the risk of the goods carried in the vehicle. However, in the instant case, the Tribunal has correctly determined the just compensation amount payable. If the just compensation is assessed, there is no excess award.
The accident in question is not in dispute. Death of Babu Khan alias Babu and also the death of cattle and injuries to other cattle are not in dispute. The documentary evidence on record establishes the fact of the accident having taken place on 19.6.1998 involving the vehicle in question and the death of Babu Khan alias Babu as well as the cattle. The finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and the death of said person and cattle and injuries to other cattle is not under challenge.
PWs 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the petitioners and Exhs. P1 to P15 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhs. R1 and R8 were marked.
PW 1 is the wife, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the children and petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 are the parents respectively of the deceased Babu Khan alias Babu. The fact that the deceased was doing business in cattle is not under challenge and as such, his income taken at Rs. 3,000 per month cannot be found fault with. Considering the fact that deceased was the sole earning member and was maintaining 7 other dependants, i.e., petitioners, the deduction of income towards the personal income of the deceased at 1/3rd is incorrect. Even the age of the deceased being 28 years as is evident from Exh. P6, the multiplier that is applicable in terms of the decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, is ''17''. The Tribunal has applied the wrong multiplier of ''16''. By applying the unit method, the loss of income to the family is Rs. 2,400 p.m. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,89,600 (Rs. 2,400 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 4,89,600).
In terms of the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , 10 per cent of the amount has to be awarded under the conventional heads. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 have lost love and affection of the deceased, it is a case wherein under the conventional heads a sum of Rs. 60,000 is required to be awarded. In the said view of the matter, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as excessive.
With regard to the contention regarding rate of interest, this court has awarded 6 per cent interest in the case of A. Manavalagan (supra) taking judicial notice of the fact that rate of interest paid by the nationalised banks on F.Ds. for one year which was 9 per cent per annum when Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, , was decided had been reduced to 6 per cent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the date on which the accident has occurred and the rate of interest at that point of time being between 8 and 9 per cent, the awarding of interest at 8 per cent by the Tribunal is not illegal.
Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit and, hence, stands dismissed.