THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.305 OF 2007
Dated 23rd January, 2014 Between:
Kadambala Krishnaveni & others .. Appellants-claimants and Vavilapalli Damodar Rao & another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.305 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the Award dated 21.11.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.13 of 2005 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,38,700/- as against the claim of Rs.3,69,500/- on account of death of one Diwakar, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 06.05.2004.
Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case are hereunder:
Deceased was a private medical practitioner, earning Rs.3,000/- per month and maintaining his wife, three children and old aged father. On 06.05.2004 when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle along with his brother’s daughter towards Nowpada and by the time they reached Bhavanapadu Junction at about 10.40 a.m. R.1 driver of the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-8860 belonging to R.2- Corporation drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and while over taking dashed the motor cycle being driven by the deceased due to which the deceased fell down along with his brother’s daughter and sustained multiple injuries resulting in his instantaneous death. The Police, Nowpadu, registered a case in crime No.14 of 2004 and after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus for the offence under section 304A of Indian Penal Code.
Narrating the above factors, claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,69,500/-.
R.1 driver of the vehicle filed counter denying the averments of the petition and further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. R.2 also resisted the claim contending that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased.
Considering the rival contentions of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R.1 the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.A.P.9/Z 8860 resulting in the death of the deceased K.Divakara Rao?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation?
3) If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
On behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1.
Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. As regards loss of dependency, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and 1/3rd therefrom was deducted towards personal expenditure apart from Rs.300/- towards maintenance of the 5th petitioner, father of the deceased, and thereby the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency of the wife and children of the deceased at Rs.1,100/- per month.
As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, after applying the multiplier ‘5’ to the loss of dependency of Rs.300/- per month, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.18,000/- to the 5th respondent, father of the deceased. Insofar as the other claimants are concerned, the Tribunal after applying the multiplier ‘16’ to the loss of dependency at Rs.1,100/- per month, granted compensation of Rs.2,11,200/- apart from Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and totaling Rs.2,38,700/-.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the legal heirs of the deceased filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Though it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was a private medical practitioner and earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the wife of the deceased deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.2000/- per month only and maintaining his family. Therefore, the amount of Rs.2000/- as stated by the wife of the deceased can be taken into consideration as the earning of the deceased as on the date of accident. However, as the claimants are five in number, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses instead 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal as per the decision of the Supreme Court i n Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[1]
.
Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,500/- per month i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum. As per the post mortem certificate, the deceased was aged 39 years. Therefore, the relevant multiplier would be ‘15’, on application of which, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,70,000/-. Apart from the same, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, totaling to Rs.3,15,000/-.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,38,700/- to Rs.3,15,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. Respondent No.2-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of three months from today, upon which, the appellants can withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petition pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
Dated 23rd January, 2014
SUR
V.SURI APPA RAO, J
[1]
2009 ACJ 1298