B.SIVA SANKARA RAO C.M.A No. 559 of 2003 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

The claimants filed this appeal having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short, ’Tribunal’) in O.P.No.602 of 2001 dated 13.11.2002, awarding compensation of Rs.1,08,000/-(Rupees One lakh eight thousand only) with interest at 9% per annum against the claim of Rs.2,54,100/- in the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

Heard. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions by the appellant that the decree and order of the lower Tribunal is contrary to law and against the evidence on record that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record and awarded meager amount of compensation against the death of the son of the appellants/claimants that the reasoning of the Tribunal in awarding only Rs.1,08,100/- is arbitrary and against the evidence on record and prayed to allow the claim as prayed for.

Whereas, it is the contention of the contesting 3rd respondent/insurer to the appeal in support of its contention before the Tribunal that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and for this Court while sitting in appeal by re-appreciation of the evidence, there is nothing to interfere for want of cross-objections and hence to dismiss the appeal.

Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference by this court either to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and if so with what observations?

2. To what result? POINT-1:

Undisputedly the claim made by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim of the petitioners basing on the accident took place on 13.02.2001 in which their son died due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent of the lorry bearing No.MP 23 D 9278 of the 2nd respondent-owner insured with the 3rd respondent-insurer. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.2,400/- per month at the time of accident. As per the evidence of the claimants, the deceased was working as cleaner in the said vehicle. Ex.A-1 certified copy of F.I.R shows that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver and after investigation the police filed Ex.A-4 charge sheet disclosing the same facts. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of the M.V.I. Report which discloses that the accident took place not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. The deceased is an unmarried person and the age of the mother is shown as 47 years. Since the claim made under Section 163-A, as per Schedule-II of the Act, the multiplier would be 13 from the age of the mother of the deceased shown as 47 years at the time of accidental death i.e., on 13.02.2002. The earnings of the deceased claimed by the claimants at Rs.2,400/- per month is not at all on high side and if half deducted towards personal expenses, it would be Rs.1,200/- per month. After applying multiplier the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,87,200/- (1200 x 12 x 13) apart from Rs.2,000/- towards funereal expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,300/- towards legal expenses. In total the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,95,000/- towards compensation for the accidental death of their son. Accordingly the point No.i is answered. POINT No.2:

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. _______________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date: 10-04-2015