HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Between:
M.A.C.M.A.No.2621 of 2007 01-07-2010 The United India Insurance Co. Limited, Jyothi Nagar, Karimnagar District.
………Appellant D.Pullamma and others.
And ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.2621 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
The Insurance Company, the appellant herein, filed this appeal challenging the award dated 21-06-2007 in M.V.O.P.No.652 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal, whereunder, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,25,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the respondents herein (claimants).
2. The appellant-Insurance Company obtained leave of the Court under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘The Act’) and contested the claim on all the grounds including the quantum.
3. Brief facts are that on 19-09-2004, when Hatchu (deceased), along with his father, was crossing the high-way, at about 6 p.m., a lorry bearing Regn. No.AP-7U/1177 of the 5th respondent hit the deceased and caused his death. The 1st claimant is the wife, the 2nd claimant is the minor son and claimants 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. The claimants filed O.P. seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-.
4. The 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one B.Srinivas was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The Assistant Manager of the appellant- Insurance Company, Sri G.Narayana Murthy was examined as R.W.1. The Tribunal, on considering the material placed before it, awarded a sum of Rs.4,16,000/- towards pecuniary loss, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, thus awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,25,500/-. Against this award, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel representing both the parties.
6. Smt. A.Malathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the compensation granted is excessive and this appeal is restricted to the said issue alone. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.1, wife of the deceased, in her cross-examination, admitted that the deceased was working as a driver of the tractor of one Srinu and getting a salary of Rs.1,500/- per month. It is contended that in the light of the said admission of P.W.1, the Tribunal should not have fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,250/-. The learned counsel would further submit that the deceased had no other income and no reliance can be placed on Ex.A-7, certified copy of the pahani, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Thorrur.
7. The learned counsel Sri Srinivas Reddy, appearing for the claimants, would contend that the Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income at Rs.3250/- and the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference.
8. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning 4,500/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was produced in support of the said claim.
9. P.W.1, in her evidence, stated that her deceased-husband was an agriculturist and also a tractor driver. He was earning both from agriculture and also as driver. To show that the deceased was doing agriculture, Ex.A-7, pahani, was filed. A perusal of the said document would show that D.Chandiya, father of the deceased as the pattedar of an extent of Ac.13.00 guntas of land in various survey numbers situated at Thorrur village. The said document also would show that the deceased Hatchu was the cultivator of the said land. The appellants did not dispute the genuineness of Ex.A-1. The said document therefore can be accepted and as such, the statement of P.W.1 that her husband was an agriculturist cannot be doubted. The appellants have not placed any rebuttal evidence to show that the deceased was not an agriculturist.
10. Accepting the version of P.W.1 that the deceased was cultivating the land, it can reasonably be inferred that the deceased was deriving some income from cultivation. It is not in dispute that he was also a tractor driver. Having regard to these facts, the monthly income which is fixed at Rs.3,250/- by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable.
11. Based on the monthly income at Rs.3,250/-, the Tribunal assessed the pecuniary loss by deducting 1/3rd from out of it and by taking the age of the deceased as 19 years, applied multiplier ‘16’ and thus assessed the pecuniary damages at Rs.4,16,000/- which cannot be said to be excessive. The Tribunal rightly awarded the amounts towards funeral charges, loss of consortium and loss of estate.
12. Having regard to the above, this Court finds no merits in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1st July 2010 KVR