LAWS(APH)-1993-7-19

I NAGAIAH Vs. RAJAKAMAL TRANSPORT

Decided On July 03, 1993
IRLA NAGAIAH Appellant
V/S
RAJAKAMAL TRANSPORT, GUNTUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parents of the deceased have filed this appeal against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur to the extent of denying compensation of Rs. 1,04,529-71 ps.

(2.) The case of the claimants is that their son Srinivasa Rao, aged 22 years unmarried, who was working in Jayalaxmi Oil and Chemical Industries Ltd., Dokiparru as makta coolie died on 27-12-1986 after being hospitalised for one month and 16days from ll-ll-86 on which date the lorry bearing No. A .B.T. 2931 belonging to the 1st respondent hit him. As the lorry was driven rashly and negligently by the driver of 1st respondent, they are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,29,529-71, ps. consisting of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of dependency of both the appellants; Rs. 10,000/- towards mental suffering by the deceased and the appellants; and Rs. 69,529-71 ps. towards the amounts spent for medical treatment and other expenses. The 2nd respondent is the insurance company with which the lorry was insured.

(3.) The owner of the lorry was set ex parte in the Tribunal while the insurance company opposed the claim denying the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and also challenged that the claim is excessive. The tribunal held that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Tribunal also found that the expense for medical treatment were incurred by Jayalaxmi Oil and Chemical Industries Ltd., which was the employer of the deceased and hence disallowed the same as there was no proof that they were repaid to the company. Regarding the loss of earnings to the dependants, the appellants' claim is that the deceased was earning as coolie at an average of Rs. 120 per week .e., approximately Rs. 500/- per month. The Tribunal granted an amounts of Rs. 25,000/- on ad hoc basis without giving any reason towards pecuniary damages and did not award any amount towards non-pecuniary damages.