CMA/3999/2003 of Chinthalapati Subba Lakshmi Vs N. Padma Nabaiah on 30 December 2010

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded inO.P. No.1235 of 2001 vide order dated 31-10-2002 by the learnedChairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal DistrictJudge, Nalgonda, claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appealseeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimants are wife and minor children of the deceased Nagaraju, who died in the accident that occurred on 08-06-2001. The owner of the dumper involved in the accident and itsinsurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before theTribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to asarrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 08-06-2001 while thedeceased took a dumper for loading the same with mines and kept thesame aside, another dumper being driven by its driver in a rash andnegligent manner, hit the deceased, as a result, he died on the spot. He was working under respondent No.1 - Sree Vishnu CementsLimited, Nalgonda District, as driver of the dumper. He was aged 28years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, they claimed acompensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

5. Respondent No.1, the owner of the dumper involved in theaccident, remained ex parte.

6. Respondent No.2, insurer of the above dumper, alone filed itscounter denying the case of the claimants and also its liability forpayment of compensation.

7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed fortrial by the Tribunal:

“1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Dumper No.2?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount ?if so, to what amount ?

3. To what relief ?”

8. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 andgot marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the insurance company, nooral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. Based on the evidence available on record and after anelaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded acompensation of Rs.1,88,200/- to the claimants as against their claimof Rs.3,50,000/- against both the respondents for payment ofcompensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimantspreferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal orcross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving theaccident and their liability for payment of compensation.

11. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants isinadequate ?

12. Coming to the question of the age of the deceased, there isno authentic evidence with regard to the same. The contention of theclaimants is that the deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of hisdeath. It is difficult to believe the same, as the age of the wife of thedeceased is shown to be 27 years and among rural folks the agedifference between the spouses would be even more than ten years. Hence, on the basis of the age of the wife of the deceased and ages oftheir children, who are shown to be aged 9 and 5 years respectively, I am assessing the age of the deceased as 35 years. For the agegroup of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier as per the decision ofthe Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC[[1]],is ‘16’.

13. Coming to the question of the income of the deceased, he was said to be driver of the dumper belonging to respondent No.1. Even according to the Tribunal, the deceased was a technical personand on that basis his income was taken at Rs.1,200/- per month. However, since the claimants got marked the salary certificate of thedeceased as Ex.A-6 issued by respondent No.1 itself showing that hissalary was Rs.2,100/- per month and the deceased was a technicalperson, I am inclined to take his income as Rs.2,000/- per month andfurther I am inclined to add 25% out of the same to it towardsenhancement of his future earning capacity. Thus, I am inclined totake the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month.

14. Accordingly, if 1/3[rd] out of his monthly income of Rs.2,500/-(Rs.2,500/- x 1/3 = Rs.833/-) is deducted towards his personalexpenses, the net contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.1,667/- (Rs.2,500/- - Rs.833/-) per month and Rs.20,004/-(Rs.1,667/- x 12) per annum. If the annual contribution of thedeceased is capitalized with multiplier ‘16’, the loss of dependencyalone comes to Rs.3,20,064/- (Rs.20,004 x 16) and the same isrounded off to Rs.3,20,000/-. Further, another sum of Rs.25,000/- canbe awarded to the claimants under other heads. Thus, the claimantsare entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- (Rupees threelakhs forty five thousand only). Accordingly, the compensation ofRs.1,88,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,45,000/-. The claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensationat 6% per annum.

15. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 alone are equally entitled to theentire enhanced compensation of Rs.1,56,800/- and the same shall bekept in fixed deposits on their names in a nationalized bank till theybecome majors. Claimant No.1 is permitted to withdraw the interestaccrued on the fixed deposits of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and appropriatethe same for their welfare till they attain majority. The apportionment ofthe compensation of Rs.1,88,200/-, awarded by the Tribunal, betweenthe claimants, its withdrawal by them and the rate of interest on thesame shall be as ordered by the Tribunal.

16. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensationand the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs.

December 30, 2010.

____________________

P. SWAROOP REDDY, J

[1]2009(6) SCC 121