NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. TAKKEDA VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter came up for admission before this court and with consent of all the parties the main C.M.A. itself is being disposed of.

(2.) Heard Mrs. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi counsel representing appellant-respondent No. 3, Mr. T. Ravikumar, counsel representing the respondents-claimants and Mr. A. Rangacharyulu and Mr. R. Venkataram, counsel representing the other respondents.

(3.) The short question raised in the present C.M.A. is that under no fault liability where the accident occurred on 5.5.1993 prior to the Amending Act, the compensation amount to be granted is Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 25,000? Except this question no other aspect had been canvassed before this court by the respective counsel representing the parties. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the appeal are the petitioners in M.V.O.P. No. 108 of 1994 on the file of the Chairmancum-III Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada and they filed the aforesaid O.P. for the claim of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for the death of Takkeda Srinivasa Rao who died in a motor vehicle accident on 5.5.1993. The facts in this petition can be briefly stated as follows: The deceased Takkeda Srinivasa Rao was the only son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-claimants and he was aged about 18 years and studied up to 10th class and the deceased was maintaining the family by doing coolie work and also with the earnings from selling vegetables at Keesara and surrounding villages. He was earning Rs. 1,500 per month and the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. It is further stated that on 5.5.1993 the deceased purchased vegetables from Kanchikacherla market and boarded the lorry bearing No. AAT 4674 to go to his village Keesara. When the said lorry reached near Mitra Oxygen Company, it dashed against the opposite vehicle No. AIW 5499 in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. Due to the accident the deceased Srinivasa Rao and another person died on the spot. The registration of a criminal case and certain other aspects had also been pleaded. Counters and additional counters were filed by the respondent parties denying the liability. On behalf of the claimants PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhs. A-l to A-4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents in the O.P. RW 1 to RW 3 were examined and Exhs. B-l and B-2 and Exh. X-l were marked. A finding had been recorded that the accident was due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. But, however, the learned Judge had awarded compensation under no fault liability allowing the O.P., in part directing R-l, R-3, R-4 and R-5 in the O.P. to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 50,000 to the claimants with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and certain other directions were also given. The counsel representing the parties had not questioned any of the findings recorded by the learned Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the only question, which had been argued, at length has been referred to supra.