The Chief Engineer Constructions, Southern Railway and Others vs Hanumanthappa and Others

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs., J.—These 2 appeals are disposed of by the common order as they are directed against the common judgment

rendered in M.V.C. Nos. 243 and 244 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banglore Rural, Bangalore.

First appeal is directed against the judgment in M.V.C. No. 343/86 in which the one Hanumanthappa was the claimant. In the other case

M.V.C. 244/86 petitioner was the dependent i.e. wife of deceased Jayaram. Hanumanthappa suffered injuries and Jayaram died in an accident

which took place when a lorry owned by the appellant-Southern Railways, bearing registration No. MYA 4789, dashed against them near

Basettiahalli Spinning Mills at Doddaballapura. The lorry which bore registration No. MYA 4789 was undisputedly owned by the appellant-

Southern Railways. The injured Hanumanthappa was an agricultural labourer or a coolie while the deceased Jayaram was an agriculturist and it

was claimed by the widow that her husband was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by milk vending and Rs. 30,000/- per annum from agriculture. It

was pleaded by both the claimants that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry owned by the Southern Railways.

The claims were resisted by the appellant-Southern Railways denying all averments in the claims petitions. On such pleadings 3 issues were

framed, they are as follows:

(1) Does the petitioner prove that the accident occurred on account of the rash and the negligent driving of the lorry?

(2) Docs the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries due to the accident?

(3) To what compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled and from which of the respondents?

On the evidence of P.W. 1, injured Hanumanthappa, the Court came to the conclusion that the rash and negligence was on account of the drive

of the lorry owned by the appellant. Even the mahazar drawn at the spot shows that the lorry was standing on the tarred portion of the right side of

the road. Therefore the conclusion that it was the lorry driver who was at fault is irresistible on account of the fact that the lorry was found on the

wrong side of the road. Therefore issue No. 1 was correctly answered in the affirmative.

Hanumanthappa claimed that he was seriously injured and suffered fracture in his leg and other injuries. P.W. 2- the doctor testified that there

was abnormal loss of mobility of right thigh and there was compound fracture of both bones of right leg. He produced the ex-rays in that behalf as

Exhibits P-51 and 52. He spoke about the prolonged treatment and the progress and re-admission of Hanumanthappa on 12-11-1987. Having

regard to the long duration of the treatment and the nature of serious injury the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- for pain

and suffering to Hanumanthappa.

So far as second claimant in the other case we concerned it came to the conclusion that the income was exaggerated by P.W. 4- the widow of

the deceased Jayaram. The Tribunal however came to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 600/- per mensum and arrived at the figure Rs. 400/-

as the monthly contribution he would have paid towards the maintenance of the family, i.e. his wife. In the result following the decision of the Court

in H.T. Bhandary Vs. Muniyamma, Followed he chose the multiplier at 12 having regard to the age of Jayaram and awarded as sum of Rs.

57,600/-. She has been awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and another Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. But her claim in regard

to the expenses towards obsequies at Rs. 3,500/- has been awarded as against the claim of Rs. 15,000/-. She failed to claim in regard to the

damages to the motorcycle. Therefore nothing was awarded. But the claimant has been awarded Rs. 500/- towards purchase of medicines while

the deceases was in the hospital. In all Rs. 71,600/- less Rs. 15.000/- awarded as interim compensation has been given to the widow of Jayaram.

We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning of the tribunal below, It has done no marc than follow the decision of this Court. In fact, but for the

decision of this court, the claimant in the second case--the widow would have been entitled to a far higher compensation and to that extent the

appellants should consider itself lucky.

We find no merit in these appeals and we reject them.