THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.59 OF 2007 Dated 21st January, 2014 Between:
APSRTC & another .. Appellants and Kandi Sayamma & others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.59 OF 2007 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.06.2006 passed in O.P.No.1105 of 2001 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, (for short ‘Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of one Kandi Venkati, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.05.2001.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 28.05.2001 at about 10.30 a.m. when the deceased was paddling cycle from Mupkal towards Armoor side, a bus bearing No.AP10-Z-5289 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction on wrong side of the road and dashed against the deceased due to which he fell down and the front wheel of the bus ran over him resulting in multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Balkonda, where he succumbed to injuries on the same day. As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years, working as a stone cutter-cum-supplier-cum- contractor, earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family. The claimants, who are the wife and daughters of the deceased respectively, filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The insurer of the vehicle resisted the claim on the ground that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the death of the deceased was due to fall and the claim is also highly excessive.
On behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,652/- per month i.e. for 26 days, applied the multiplier of ‘14’ and thereby awarded the compensation of Rs.2,97,024/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and thereby awarded a total sum of Rs.3,19,524/- which was rounded off to Rs.3,20,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant-Corporation filed this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended before the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased himself and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive.
When the appellant-Corporation pleaded before the Tribunal that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased himself, it is for the appellant to adduce evidence to that effect. But, the appellant did not choose to examine the driver, conductor or any other passenger of the bus to substantiate said plea. In the absence of any such evidence, there is no reason for this Court to take a contrary view from the one taken by the Tribunal holding that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Considering the evidence of the eye-witness and the documents under Ex.A.1 FIR, A.4 charge sheet, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus.
Insofar as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased for 26 days in a month at Rs.2,652/-
i.e. Rs.100/- per day. The deceased being a stone cutter-cum- contractor would be able to earn atleast Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased restricting the working days to 26 days only in a month and also rightly applied the multiplier of ‘14’ as the deceased was aged 40 years as per post- mortem certificate and thereby awarded just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, I see no grounds to interfere with the impugned award in any respect.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petition pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
V.SURI APPA RAO, J
Dated 21st January, 2014 sur