BURRA NARSAIAH Vs. MOVA VENKATESWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point for determination in this MACMA filed by the claimants against the Award dated 23.10.2006 in O.P.No.881 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, MACT -cum -District Judge, Karimnagar (for short 'the Tribunal ' is whether the claimants being brothers of the deceased - Burra Venkataiah can claim compensation for loss of earnings of the deceased as his legal representatives.

(2.) THE facts in short shrift are thus: a The claimants and deceased -Burra Venkataiah are own brothers. The claimants are residents of Irukulla Village in Karimnagar Mandal, whereas the deceased was residing in the adjacent Durshed Village and was aged 40 years. As per the claimants, the deceased was grazing the sheep of PW.3 who runs the mutton shop and a hotel in Durshed Village. While so, on the early morning of 21.08.2004 at about 5:30am, when the deceased was sleeping near the cattle shed of PW.3, a lorry bearing No. AP 9 U 3447 proceeding from Karimnagar to Godavari Khani being driven by its driver at high speed and in a careless manner went and rammed into the hotel and hit the deceased causing his instantaneous death. The claimants on the plea that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the lorry driver and that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,000/ - p.m and they were depending on his earnings and now they lost his support, have filed O.P.No.881 of 2005 against respondents 1 to 3, who are driver, owner and insurer of the offending lorry and claimed Rs.3,00,000/ - as compensation. b The claim against 1st respondent was dismissed for want of taking steps. c Second respondent remained ex parte. d Third respondent/Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim by denying all the material averments made in the petition and contended that the driver of the lorry had no valid driving licence. e During trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of claimants. RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of R.3. f Perusal of the award would show that in respect of issue No.1, having regard to the eye witness evidence of PW.3 coupled with Ex.A.1 -FIR, Ex.A.2 -charge sheet and Ex.A.4 -inquest report, the Tribunal held that the lorry driver (R.1 was responsible for the accident. Regarding issue No.2 touching the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal though assessed the loss of earnings of the deceased at Rs.1,87,200/ - but declined to grant the compensation for loss of dependency on the observation that the claimants were not depending on the earnings of the deceased and that they are having their own earnings. Ultimately, the Tribunal granted Rs.17,000/ - only as compensation i.e, Rs.15,000/ - towards loss of love and affection; Rs.1,000/ - towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/ - towards transport charges. The Tribunal dismissed the contention of R.3 that the driver had no valid driving licence on the finding that R.3 failed to prove this allegation. Hence, the appeal by claimants.

(3.) HEARD arguments of Sri Vemuganti Ram Chandar Rao, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for R3/Insurance Company. R.1 is not necessary party in this appeal. Notice to R2 was unserved. However, since R.2 suffered decree before the Tribunal, his absence is not a consequence in this appeal in view of the decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others [2001 (1 ALT 485].