CMA/941/2001 of D.KANAKA LAXMI AND OTHERS Vs K.CHANDAN GOUD AND OTHERS on 31 December 2009

-JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants-appellants seekingenhancement of the compensation. The claimants are the widow,the children and the aged parents of the deceased, who wasworking as a Salesman. While he was working as such andtraveling in a matador van bearing No.A.I.M-4892 during thecourse of employment, the said vehicle met with an accident, onaccount of collision with an R.T.C.Bus bearing No.AEZ-205 drivenby respondent No.1 and belonging to respondent Nos.2 and 3 andthereby, he received serious injuries. Immediately after theaccident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Sircilla where he succumbed to the injuries. The present case was filedby the claimants only in so far as the R.T.C. bus is concerned. The driver, owner and insurer of the van, in which the deceasedwas traveling were not impleaded in the claim petition.

2. The Tribunal below, on consideration of evidence, foundrash and negligent act of driving on the part of the drivers of vanas well as the R.T.C. bus, and consequently, held Issue No.1 thatthe accident occurred on account of composite negligence of thedrivers of both the vehicles and apportioned the negligence to theR.T.C. bus and the van in the proportion of 60% and 40%respectively. As mentioned above, since the driver, owner and theinsurer of the van were not impleaded in the claim petition, therelief, which the claimants can seek, is only confined to 60% of theliability of the respondents herein, conserving the R.T.C. bus.

3. On the question of compensation under Issue No.2, theTribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- permonth which was established by evidence of P.W.3 coupled withEx.A-3-salary certificate, and based on the same, after deducting1/3[rd] thereof for personal expenses, the dependency wasassessed at Rs.12,000/- per year. The Tribunal, then applied themultiplier based upon age of the deceased as shown in Ex.A-2-inquest report i.e., 32 years and by applying the multiplier ‘15’,awarded the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. The Tribunal alsoawarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards pain and suffering andRs.9,000/- for loss of expectation of life and thereby, awardedaggregate compensation of Rs.1,98,000/-. The liability of therespondents is to the extent of 60%. The same worked out toRs.1,18,800/- which was allowed with interest at 12% per annum. As the claimants were seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- inthe said claim petition and the said extent is disallowed, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellantsand Sri P.Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counselfor A.P.S.R.T.C.

5. So far as the composite negligence and the liability ofA.P.S.R.T.C. to the extent of 60% is concerned, there is hardlyany controversy. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel forthe appellants, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the monthlyearnings of the deceased, but committed an error in applying themultiplier. The learned counsel also submitted that the amountawarded under pain and suffering and loss of consortium ought tobe atleast at Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- each awarded bythe Tribunal below. Further, the funeral expenses awarded isRs.2,000/-, which also requires appropriate enhancement.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that theTribunal has correctly assessed dependency and applied themultiplier on the basis of the legal position then existing and assuch, the Award has not warranted any interference.

7. The assessment of monthly income of the deceased, as isevident from the Award of the Tribunal below is clearly supportedby Ex.A-3 read with evidence of P.W.3. However, while applyingthe multiplier, a marginal modification may be warranted in view ofthe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMAAND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND

ANOTHER[[1]]. In thesaid decision in Para No.21, the Hon’bleSupreme Court has standardized the multiplier after survey oflarge number of decisions and the Second Schedule in the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 and as per the said decision, the multiplier forthe age group of 31 to 35 is 16. If we apply the said multiplier to the dependency of Rs.12,000/- per year, the total amount wouldwork out to Rs.1,92,000/-. As per Second Schedule, furtheramount of Rs.15,000/- is required to be added towards loss ofconsortium, as against Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below. Further, towards pain and suffering inclusive of medical expensesincurred in the hospital, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- deserves tobe added as against Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal below. Anadditional amount of Rs.10,000/- deserves to be added towardsthe transportation and funeral expenses, as against Rs.2,000/-allowed by the Tribunal below. Thus, the Award deserves to bemodified and 60% of the amount as now modified would work outto Rs.1,39,200/- as against Rs.1,18,800/- awarded by theTribunal. The said enhanced amount shall also carry interest at9% per annum from the date of the claim till realization.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicatedabove. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________

VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

30[th] December, 2009AMD

[1]2009 ACJ 1298