K VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. G GOURAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident resulting in the death of one late Gowru Sriramulu, who was the husband of R-l and father of respondents 2 to 4. R-l to R-4 filed O.P. 44 of 1988 and O.P.45 of 1988 under Section 110-A and 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act respectively claiming compersation. The claim of the respondents 1 to 4 was contested by the appellant-owner and the Insurance Company. The learned Trial Judge after appreciation of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owned by the appellant. Thereafter, the learned Judge proceeded to assess the quantum of compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased. The learned Judge awarded a sum of Rs.53,316/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.7,500/- towards loss of expectancy of life and Rs.7,500/- under the Head Tain and Suffering' and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, totallinga sum of Rs.73,500/-. The owner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, has preferred this miscellaneous appeal. The claimants-respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal, have also preferred cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 (Cross-Objectors). The learned Counsel for the appellant- owner attacked the order made by the Tribunal contending that there is no acceptable evidence to support the finding that the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant, was guilty of negligent driving and on account of such rash and negligent driving, the accident took place. Secondly, the learned Counsel would submit that the quantum of compensation determined and awarded to the respondents 1 to 4 is onhigher side. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel submits that the learned Tribunal blindly accpeted the age of the deceased to be 35 years in the absence of any supporting material and solely on the self-serving statement of the wife of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 (Cross-Objectors) would maintain that the Tribunal has seriously erred in law in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased. The learned Counsel would submit that having regard to the facts situation of the case, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted more than 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased. The learned Counsel would also submit that the multiplier 14.81 applied by the trial Court is also erroneous and it ought tohave been atleast 16 or 17 in view of the law laid down by this Court in Y. Varalakshmi vs.M. Nageshwara Rao & others. The learned Counsel furtherplacingreliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamna Thomas and the.decision of a Division Bench decision of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. G. Aruna would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs.15,000/-under theHead'Loss of Con sortium'and a further sumof Rs.15,000/- under the Head 'Lossof the Estate'. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 quite fairly submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, the claimants may not be entitled to the compensation under the heads 'Loss of Expectation of Life' and Tain and Suffering'.

(3.) Let the Court consider the first argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. On the issue whether the accident took place due to the negligent and reckless driving by the driver of the Motor Vehicle, an independent and impartial witness by name Tirupathi Rao was examined as P. W.2. In his evidence, P.W.2 has dearly stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent drivingof the vehicle owned by the appellant. The learned Judge in his judgment has pointed out that as against the evidence of F.W.2 with regard to the manner in which the accident took place, there was absolutely no evidence let in or adduced by the respondents. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge recorded his finding that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle owned by the appellant. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge is based on acceptable evidence and it cannot be said that it suffers from any perversity. It is also not possibl e to hold that the finding is based on ''no evidence". Therefore, I reject the first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. There is also no merit in the second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded to the respondents 1 to 4 is on higher side. The deceased was only an illiterate hamali working in a kirana shop. The wife in her evidence stated that the deceased was 35 years old when he died. Her statement regarding the age was not seriously disputed. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Tribunal to take the age of the deceased to be 35 years and on that basis to compute the compensation payable to the dependants. On the other hand, respondents 1 to 4 have made out a strong case for enhancement of the compensation. Idonot find any justification for the Tribunal to deduct 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. While determining the loss of dependency, the trend of decisions clearly goes to show that not more than1/3 rd of the total income of the deceased should be deducted towards the personal expenses of such deceased. Even taking that the deceased was earning Rs.20/- per day or Rs.600/- p.m., at the most he would have spent only V3rd of that amount towards his personal expenses and would have contributed the remaining amount towards his family consisting his wife and the children. In that view of the matter, the yearly contribution to the family would be Rs.4,800/-. In a similar fact situation, this Court in V. Varalakshmi vs. M. Nageshwara Rao (supra) increased the multiplier from 12.79 to 13.79. The Court in para 14 of the judgment observed as follows: