Telangana High Court
MACMA/315/2007 of Kovvuri Viswanadha Reddy Vs K.Chandra Reddy on 31 December 2014
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.315 of 2007 JUDGMENT : The claimants, no other than the parents of the deceased by name Bhaskar Reddy, aged about 22 years, as per Ex.A-3 post mortem report, maintained the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘ the
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAOM.A.C.M.A.No.315 of 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT :
The claimants, no other than the parents of the deceased byname Bhaskar Reddy, aged about 22 years, as per Ex.A-3 postmortem report, maintained the claim petition under Section 166 of theMotor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) for Rs.3,00,000/- for theaccidental death of him dated 13.08.2014 while the deceased wasproceeding on his cycle after finishing his work from SrinivasaEnterprises, due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter of the1[st] respondent insured with 2[nd] respondent covered by Ex.B-1policy, the Tribunal having held that the accident was the result ofthe rash and negligent driving of the scooterist for no fault of thedeceased cyclist, awarded compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- with jointliability against both the respondents with interest at 7.5% p.a.
2) It is impugning the same mainly on the quantum ofcompensation as utterly low, the claimants preferred the appeal withcontentions in the grounds of appeal to allow the appeal as prayedfor. The contention of the insurer that the driver has no valid drivinglicence that could not be established for what Ex.B-2 M.V.I. reportspeaks no licence produced, not a ground of no licence for chargesheet not even mentioned for any offence under Section 181 of theAct. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer thatthere is nothing for this Court to interfere with the quantum ofcompensation made final, but for no cross-objections of driver nothaving any valid driving licence from column No.17 of Ex.B-2 whichspeaks no licence produced for not having driving licence and R.W-1employee of the insurer also deposed the same and hence todismiss the appeal.
3) Heard Sri K.Viswanatha Reddy the learned counsel for theappellants and Sri P.Harinath Gupta learned standing counsel for theinsurer. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter arereferred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake ofconvenience in the appeal.
4) Now the points that arise for consideration in the appealare:
1. Whether the quantum of compensation is utterly low toenhance, if so to what amount, with what liability on theinsurer to indemnify?enhance, if so to what amount, with what liability on theinsurer to indemnify?
2. To what result?
POINT No.1:
5) Coming to the liability of the insurer, no doubt in the counterof the insurer the plea was taken of driver was not having validdriving licence and Ex.B-2 M.V.I. report clearly speaks no licenceproduced by the driver of the crime scooter of 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and chargesheet also not even speaks any offence for not having valid drivinglicence of the driver of the scooter and the insurer could notestablish anything more muchless by cause summoning the owner ofthe scooter, 1[st] respondent, to show the licence particulars or evenby summoning the R.T.O or even by issuing notice to produce thelicence particulars to support any further facts to the contention. Thus, for this Court while sitting in appeal with that finding of jointliability holding no proof for not having valid licence to driver, no wayrequires interference.
6) Coming to the quantum of the compensation, the deceasedwas claimed working in Srinivasa Enterprises, Cherlapalli and gettingsalary of Rs.2,000/- per month. No doubt, there is no salarycertificate filed, the Tribunal taken the earnings of the deceased
there from at Rs.2,000/- per month as claimed. In fact, once that istaken of Rs.2,000/- per month as the deceased at the time ofaccident was at 22 years, there is a prospective increase in earningsthat is to be taken into consideration and even that is to beconsidered and even as per the latest expression of the Apex Courtin Kishan Gopal V. Lala[[1]]in the absence of proof of earnings, evena claim under Section 163-A of the Act, minimum Rs.30,000/- perannum to be taken as earnings to be read for Rs.15,000/- per annummentioned in Schedule II of the Act and if that is taken withprospective increase at Rs.30,000/- per annum, one half to bededucted towards personal expenses since the deceased is anunmarried and the claimants are his parents and from the age of theparents between 40 to 45 taken as per Schedule II the multiplierapplicable is 15.5, it comes to Rs.2,32,500/-. Apart from this, theclaimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate andRs.2,000/- towards funereal expenses as per Section 163-A readwith Schedule II of the Act, it comes to Rs.2,39,500/- is thecompensation the claimants are entitled to enhance. Accordingly,point No.1 is answered.
POINT No.2:
7) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing thecompensation from Rs.1,43,000/- to Rs.2,39,500/- towards thecompensation to the claimants. Rest of the terms in the award of theTribunal holds good. No order as to costs.
8) Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shallstand closed.
Date: 31-12-2014ksh
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J