PADMA YADAMMA Vs. GADDAM PRABHAKAR GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mr.Krishna, the husband of the first appellant, father of appellants 2 and 3 and son of respondents 3 and 4, is an agricultural labourer of Kallakal Village, Mcdak District. On 01.04.1996 at 7:30 p.m. he was crossing the road, by the side of National Highway No.7, with a bag of rice on his head. A Jeep bearing No. API 6475, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent herein, dashed against him and he died on account of the injuries. The appellants and respondents 3 and 4 herein filed O.P.No.375 of 1996 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Medak at Sangaredcly, claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and OiP.No.376 of 1996, for a sum of Rs.50.000/- as compensation, towards no fault liability, under Section 140 of the Act.

(2.) Through a common order, dated 30.10.1998, the Tribunal dismissed O.P.No.376 of 1996 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation in O.P.No.375 of 1996. However, it held that the appellants are entitled to be paid half of the awarded amount, on the ground that the deceased was equally liable for the accident. Since compensation was awarded under Section 166 of the Act, it dismissed the O.P. filed under Section 140 of the Act. The appellants seek enhancement of the compenration Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal was not justified in treating the income of the deceased at Rs.500/- per month and applying the multiplier '15', particularly when the Parliament itself had supplied the parameters in Schedule-II to the Act. He furthetr contends that it was neither pleaded nor established by respondents 1 and 2 that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal and therefore, he is treated as not necessary in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(3.) On behalf of the second respondent-Insurance Company, Sri D.Vijaya Shankar, the learned counsel, submits that the circumstances, under which the accident occurred, clearly disclose that the deceased was unmindful of the traffic on a National Highway and had contributed substantially for the accident. He further submits that the Tribunal had applied the correct and relevant parameters in computing the compensation and that the same does not warrant interference.