Appeal filed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.2,46,000 compensation for death in a motor accident. This Court found the fixed income unduly low and increased the total compensation to Rs.3,75,000 including loss of consortium.
Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,46,000 to Rs.3,75,000; interest at 8% granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2741 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:-
The appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda in O.P.No.1096 of 2002.
A claim for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs was initially made and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.5 lakhs consequent on the death of one Md.Samiulla in a motor accident.
According to the case of the petitioners, on 18-08-2002 at 3.00 P.M when the deceased and his cleaner were attending to the change of tyre of the lorry at Savullagudem of Kattangaur Mandal, one lorry bearing No.AP.9U.8765 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationed lorry from behind, as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The deceased was said to be aged about 42 years and earning Rs.6,000/- per month being the driver and owner of the lorry.
The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the Insurance Company and they have contended that the claim is excessive and untenable and the nature of the incident is also disputed.
After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,46,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed.
Now the point that arises for consideration is:-
Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable?
POINT:-
So far as the nature of the incident and cause of death of the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute and Insurance Company has
not challenged the award.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the lorry and the lower Tribunal without considering this aspect has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/- per month which is far low even by taking the minimum wages and consequently the award is not proper. The fact that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the lorry is not in dispute. Therefore, the income fixed by the lower Tribunal appears to be evidently on a lower side and I feel ends of justice would meet if the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the contribution comes to Rs.2000/- and the annual contribution comes to Rs.24,000/-. The multiplier for the age group of the deceased said to be “15” and the total contribution comes to Rs.24,000/x 15 = Rs.3,60,000/-. Further, the petitioners will be entitled for the nonpecuniary damages of Rs.5000/- and as the first petitioner lost her husband, she is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and thus the total compensation to which the petitioners entitled Rs.3,75,000/- and the interest is fixed at the same rate as granted by the lower Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The award of the lower Tribunal is modified and the total compensation to which the petitioners entitled Rs.3,75,000/- in stead of Rs.2,46,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. Further, the petitioners are entitled for interest @ 8% as granted by the lower Tribunal.
___________________
N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J
08-02-2012 TSNR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable?
Whether the income fixed at Rs.1,800/- per month was appropriate given the deceased was an owner-cum-driver?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellants/Petitioners (Family of Md.Samiulla)
First Respondent (Lorry Owner)
Second Respondent (Insurance Company)
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
