MACMA/2146/2006 of The Managing Director, Vs Ch. Jangaiah on 27 December 2013

Judgment:

This appeal is directed against the award dated 19.06.2006 passed inMVOP No.192 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents ClaimsTribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-Addl. Metropolitan SessionsJudge-cum-VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby andwhereunder the appellants-Corporation herein were directed to paycompensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date ofpetition till realisation for the death of one Sreedhar, the son of therespondents 1 and 2 herein.

The brief facts of the case are as follows. On 26.11.2003 at about11.00 PM the deceased was proceeding on Hero Honda motor cycle bearingNo.AP-29A-3583 and when the said motor cycle reached near Bagyalathacolony bus stop, the bus bearing No.AP10Z 9617 belonged to the appellants-Corporation is alleged to have driven by its driver in a rash and negligentmanner and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, resulting in thedeceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. The respondents 1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased claimed totalcompensation of Rs.3,00,000/- contending that the deceased was working ashelper in Mother Dairy, Hayathnagar and earning Rs.3,000/- per month.

The appellants-Corporation contested the matter.

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents-claimants the firstrespondent was examined as PW.1 and one K. Ravinder Reddy wasexamined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked and none were examinedand no documents have been marked on behalf of the appellants-Corporation.

The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, cameto the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivingof the driver of the bus. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased atRs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3[rd] towards his personal expenses and by applying the multiplier ‘13’ estimated the total loss ofdependency at Rs.3,17,000/-. The Tribunal further held that the claimants arealso entitled to funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/-, but however restricted theaward to Rs.3,00,000/- basing on the claim of the claimants.

The main submission of Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned StandingCounsel for the appellants-Corporation is that three persons were proceedingon motor cycle and that there is contributory negligence and the Tribunal hasnot taken this aspect into consideration. His next submission is that theTribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per monthin the absence of any positive evidence.

On the other hand, Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for therespondents-claimants supported the award passed by the Tribunal andsubmitted that in the light of the judgment reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh[[1]], the respondents-claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- towardsfuneral expenses and that the multiplier to be applied should be ‘15’ even ifthe mother’s age is taken as 42 years. It is also his submission that even incase of private employees there should be addition in the income of thedeceased.

As seen from the record, admittedly, the appellants-Corporation havenot examined their driver and not adduced any evidence. Mere taking a pleathat there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is notsufficient. The pleadings cannot be taken as evidence. The specificpleadings have to be proved by adducing necessary evidence. Since itappears that the appellants have not adduced any evidence the Tribunal wasright in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the bus. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of thelearned counsel for the appellants that there was contributory negligence onthe part of the deceased.

Conclusion

As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, according to PW.1the deceased was working as helper in Mother Dairy, Hayathnagar andearning Rs.3800/- per month. Since the claimants have not produced anydocumentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. Admittedly, there is no addition to this income by theTribunal. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3[rd] towards personal expenses of thedeceased and has taken loss of earnings at Rs.24,000/- per annum andapplied the multiplier ‘13’. The age of the mother of the deceased is shownas 42 years in the claim petition. According to the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[[2]], appropriate multiplier for the ageof 42 years is ‘14’. Since the Tribunal has applied ’13’ multiplier, I cannot findfault with the Tribunal.

As far as the income of the deceased is also concerned, since thedeceased was said to be working as helper in Mothers Dairy and he wasaged about 22 years, it appears that the Tribunal has correctly taken theincome of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. According to thecalculations made by the Tribunal total loss of dependency comes toRs.3,17,000/-. The Tribunal also opined that the claimants are entitled toRs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. As per the judgment in Rajesh’s case(1 supra)the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount shall be Rs.3,42,000/- (Rs.3,17,000/- + Rs.25,000/-). Since the claimants have claimed only Rs.3,00,000/-, the Tribunal awardedthe same. Even if it is held that there is some contributory negligence on thepart of the deceased, there may not be any much difference between theamount to which the claimants would be entitled to and the amount alreadyawarded by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that in similar case arising out ofthe same accident this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants-Corporation, by judgment dated 02.12.2009, passed in MACMA No.2489 of2006. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasonedorder passed by the Tribunal. The MACMA is devoid of merit and the sameis liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed. However, in the circumstances,no costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thisMACMA shall stand closed.

Date: 27.12.2013

Nsr

[1] (2013) 9 SCC 54 (2013) 9 SCC 54

[2] 2009 ACJ 1298 2009 ACJ 1298

______________________

B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.