PASUPULETI SATYAVATHI Vs. VEERAMREDDY VENKATA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tribunal, having recorded a finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. ADW 3544 in which one Pasupuleti Nagaraju @ Nagulu died, did not specify the general damages and special damages on various counts as required under law and awarded Rs. 30,000/- to the 1st petitioner i.e. wife of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased. I have perused the judgment. I can only feel sorry for the way in which a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge disposed of the petition without reference to the law on the aspect. The learned Judge has not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc. Likewise, the learned Judge neither estimated the monthly income of the deceased person nor decided the multiplier to be applied for assessing the loss of dependency as required under law. Since the judgment is not in conformity with the law as expounded by the superior Courts, I have no option except to set aside the award and remit the matter for fresh consideration to dispose of the O.P. on merits on the basis of material available on record after hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side. Since the accident has taken place on 23-11-1994, I direct the Tribunal to dispose of the O.P. in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Tribunal need not give any opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence at this stage.

(2.) The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

(3.) To the misfortune of the claimants, the advocate engaged by them did not take even the minimum care that is required of a member of the legal fraternity in proving the avocation of the deceased person except stating that he was doing oil business at the time of his death. The claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act have now become a source for earning money loosely without any effort by the members of the legal fraternity. In this gamble, at times, the claimants get more and at time they suffer heavily in the hands of the lawyer in whom they reposed trust and confidence by entrusting the case. It is time for the Bar Council to take remedial steps to see that the members of the legal fraternity may not play with the lives of their clients in connivance with the counsel appearing for the Insurance Companies.