The Hon'ble Court dismissed the appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the compensation award of Rs. 3,00,000 given to the legal heirs of Narsaiah in a motor accident claim. The court found no merit in the insurer's challenge.
MACMA dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
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 B. CHANDRA KUMAR
M.A.C.M.A. No. 1650 of 2006
Judgment:
This appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 17.11.2005 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 386 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-VI Additional District Judge (III FTC), Warangal, at Mahabubabad.
The first respondent is the wife and the second respondent is the son of the deceased Narsaiah. The third respondent is the owner of the vehicle. On 05.01.2004 the deceased was proceeding towards the bus stand to engage an auto for transporting rice from Rice Mill to his house. Meanwhile at about 5.00 PM the offending jeep bearing No.AP15U 3028 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came and dashed against the deceased from behind, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The claimants case is that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and he used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month on agriculture. They claimed total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
The Insurance Company has contested the case and disputed the averments made by the claimants.
The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.
1. Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the crime jeep bearing No.AP-15U-3028, driven by its driver?
2. Whether the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation as legal heirs of the deceased? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
On behalf of the claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company none were examined except marking the copy of insurance policy as Ex.B1.
The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. The Tribunal, taking the age of the deceased as 45 years, basing on Ex.A3 postmortem report, and taking the minimum wage fixed for unskilled manual labourer at Rs.2,600/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying ‘13’ multiplier, awarded Rs.2,70,400/- towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate basing on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in G.M. Kerala
State Transport Corporation v. Susmma Thomas[1] . The total compensation comes to Rs.3,09,400/-. Since the claimants claimed only Rs.3,00,000/- the same is restricted to Rs.3,00,000/-.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants.
I do not find any mistake in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,600/- per month as fixed by the Minimum Wages Board. It is
contended that the residence of the deceased comes under Zone-III of Warangal District, for which wages for agricultural labourers are only Rs.52/- per day. In fact, according to PW.1 the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of wife of the deceased. It is clear that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is correct. In view of the latest decisions of this Court and Apex Court, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this MACMA shall stand closed.
___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
Date: 26.11.2013 Nsr
[1] AIR 1994 SC 1631
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Transport Corporation v. Susmma ThomasReferred¶12
State Transport Corporation v. Susmma Thomas AIR 1994 SC 1631 · Who else cites this
New India Assurance Company Limited
Wife of Narsaiah
Son of Narsaiah
Owner of vehicle AP15U 3028
B. CHANDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
