GUTHULA PADMA Vs. KUKKALA NARAYANA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, who are the widow, children and parents of Venkataramana (the deceased), aged about 23 years and working as a collie, filed a claim Petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of the deceased in an accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent when he was travelling as a coolie in the lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte, both in the Tribunal and this Court. 3rd respondent filed a counter contesting the claim petition. The said petition was tried with some other O.Ps. filed by the other injured who were travelling in the same lorry along with the deceased and six witnesses were examined on behalf of all the claimants, and Ex. A-1 to A-8 were marked on their behalf. 3rd respondent who did not adduce oral evidence marked Ex. B-1 by consent. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,09,000/- to the appellants. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, appellants preferred this appeal.

(2.) Since this is an appeal by the claimants seeking enhanced compensation and since the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent became final, the only point for consideration in this appeal is to what compensation are the appellants entitled for?

(3.) Since the accident occurred in 1992, and since the deceased was a resident of Vedurumudi, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, the average wages of the deceased at the time of his death can be taken Rs. 750/- per month, and so his contribution to the appellants can be taken as Rs. 500/- per month or Rs. 6,000/- per annum. I am aware of the fact that the contribution of the deceased to the appellants fixed by me is much less than what was taken by the Tribunal as the contribution of the deceased to the appellants, in an appeal preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. The Tribunal obviously, without keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in 1992 when the wages in remote rural areas were not high, took higher amount as the contribution of the deceased to appellants. Since this Court under Rule 33 Order 41 of C.P.C., can interfere with the unreasonable findings of the trial Court, I fixed the contribution of the deceased at Rs. 500/- per month to the appellants.