PATURU KATHYAYANI Vs. RAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the claimants in OP No.301/2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nellore (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the purpose of convenience). The said O.P. was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the death of the deceased Paturu Nagaraja Rao who died in the road accident, which had taken place on 14.11.2000 at about 11.00 a.m., at Radhakrishna Medical Shop, Balaji Nagar, Nellore Town, Nellore District. The Tribunal in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, having settled the Issues, recorded the evidence of PW1, PW2, marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and Ex.B1 and ultimately allowed the O.P. partly directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of -realization and no doubt certain further directions also had been made. The claimants being aggrieved of that portion of the award, negativing the rest of the reliefs, had preferred the present M.A.C.M.A.

(2.) The 2nd respondent in the present M.A.C.M.A. - United India Insurance Company Ltd. had not chosen to prefer any appeal and hence so far as the award relates to the compensation which had been already granted by the Tribunal in a way, the same had attained finality.

(3.) Sri M. Subrahmanyam, the learned Counsel representing the appellants would maintain that the Tribunal totally erred in taking multiplier as '5'. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the Tribunal ought to have followed Section 163-A of the Act and the II-Schedule and inasmuch as the age of the deceased is not in serious controversy being '55' years, the Tribunal should have adopted '11' multiplier and hence inasmuch as wrong multiplier had been applied, the compensation payable had been substantially reduced by virtue of which serious prejudice had been caused to the appellants-claimants. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it is true that the owner of the vehicle is shown as 'not necessary party' in the M.A.C.M.A. but however in the absence of such party also, since the M.A.C.M.A. survives, the matter to be decided on merits. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the 1st respondent in M.A.C.M.A., the owner of the vehicle, had not chosen to contest the matter even before the Tribunal. Even otherwise the contention that in the absence of the owner, the M.A.C.M.A. cannot be decided on merits, cannot be accepted in the light of the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Chakra Rao v. Y. Babu Rao, 2001 (1) ALD 453 = 2001 (1) ALT 495 (DB). While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel also relied on several other decisions and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case '11' multiplier to be applied and the compensation to be enhanced accordingly.