R BALANARASAMMA Vs. K RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants in O.P. No.147/89 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District have questioned the award of the Tribunal dated 19-3-1990 wherein the Tribunal while conceding the claim in favour of the claimants to the extent of 50% of Rs.1,30,800/- (Rs.65,400/-) held that the accident was due to the negligence of the drivers of the two lorries ADQ 7155 and ATR 600 and not mainly due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry ADQ 7155. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry ADQ 7155 and the 2nd respondent is its insurer. The claim was lodged under Sec.110-A of the M.V. Act, 1939 (for short the Act) for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation.

(2.) The claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants 2 to 6 are the children and claimant No.7 is the mother of the deceased Sathaiah, who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4-12-1988 while he was travelling in the lorry ATR 600 due to the alleged negligence of the driver of the lorry ADQ 7155. During the enquiry, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the drivers of both the lorries. Having found that the age of the deceased was 35 years when he died and contribution to the family was Rs.600/- per month, with the multiplier of 14 and multiplicand of Rs.7,200/- arrived at Rs.1,08,000/- towards loss of contribution to the family, added Rs.20,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, Rs.3,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.l and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral and incidental expenses and in view of the composite negligence of both the drivers apportioned it 50% each to them and consequently reduced the compensation to 50% i.e., Rs.65,400/-.

(3.) Mr. V.V. Ramanatham, the learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants has raised three broad contentions, (1) when the finding of the Tribunal is that the accident was due to the composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, the claimants were entitled to proceed against one or both the drivers, owners and the insurers of the vehicles and there could have been no scope for apportioning the negligence between the drivers; (2) the amount of compensation awarded is not adequate having due regard to the evidence before the Tribunal, and (3) even assuming that the negligence could have been apportioned between the two drivers, the Tribunal was bound to pass an award against the driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle whereby the claimants would have exhausted the remedy in accordance with Sec.96(2) of the Act before or during the execution proceedings.