KAJA TRISULA DEVI Vs. NARAGANI NAGESWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS C.M.A. is filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam. The 1st appellant is the wife of the deceased. The 2nd and the 3rd appellants are the children of the deceased, being minors, represented by the 1st appellant. The 1st respondent in this appeal is the Driver. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the Jeep bearing No. ADY 411 (hereinafter called as the insured). The 3rd respondent is The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad (hereinafter called as the insurer). On 20-3-1981 at 11-30 A.M., the 1st appellant's husband, one, Kaja Krishna Murthy aged about 30 years, working as Revenue Inspector in the A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation at Bhadrachalam and drawing a salary of Rs. 600/- per month, met with an accident, while travelling in the above jeep driven by the 1st respondent and owned by the 2nd respondent. In that accident, the husband of the 1st appellant died. The three appellants had, therefore, filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam claiming Ri, 30,000/- for the 1st appellant towards her maintenance; Rs. 30,000/-for the maintenance and education expenses of the 2nd appellant and Rs. 35,000/- for the maintenance and marriage expenses of the third appellant. They also claimed special damages of Rs. 5,000/-. In all, the appellants had claimed the total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

(2.) THE 1st respondent, the driver, remained exparte. The 2nd respondent only contested the claim of the appellants. The 2nd respondent pleaded that the heirs of the deceased had received substantial amounts from the Government towards F.B.R. and Gratuity and they were also entitled to get a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the LIC policy and that, therefore, they were not entitled to claim the above sum. The insurer, the 3rd respondent, denied that the deceased died of the accident and pleaded that the claim of the appellants for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, was speculative. They also stated that the records of their office had been verified and they did not find the vehicle, ADY 411 was insured with that company. In a fit of irresponsibility, they also denied that the deceased was hale and healthy and was drawing a sum of Rs. 600/- per month. Although, the insurance company reserved the right to file an additional counter affidavit, they never filed any additional counter affidavit. The Tribunal had raised two issues: The 1st issue is, whether the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. ADY 411 by the 1st respondent and whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation, if any, and if so, against whom? In support of the claim of the claimants, the deceased's wife deposed as P.W. 1 marking Exs. A-1 to A-4. Owner of the jeep, ADY 411 never went into the box. On behalf of the Insurance Company, its Administrative Officer was examined as R.W. 1 and Exs. B-1 and B-2 were marked. It may be mentioned that Ex. B-1 was the insurance policy dt. 23-3-1981. Under that policy which was valid from 17-3-1981 to 16-3-1982, the 3rd respondent had indemnified, (1) the 2nd respondent against the loss or damage to the above mentioned jeep and (2) also against all sums the insured becomes legally liable to pay in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the Motor Car above mentioned. According to the terms of the policy, the company will indemnify the insured in the event of the accident caused by or arising out of the use of the Motor Car against all sums including the claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person including the occupants carried in the motor car, provided that such occupants are not carried for hire or reward but except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured (emphasis supplied). Ex. B-2 is a Note No. I.M.T. 5 attaching to and forming part of the above Policy. The opening lines of that Note as follows: In consideration of the payment of an additional premium, it is hereby understood and agreed that the Company undertakes to pay compensation on the scale provided below for bodily injury as hereinafter defined sustained by any passenger other than the insured and/or his paid driver attendant or cleaner and/or a person in the employment of the Insured coming within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act and engaged in and upon the service of the Insured at the time such injury is sustained whitest mounting into dismounting from or travelling in but not driving the Motor Car and caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independently of any other cause shall within three calendar months of the occurrence of such injury result in:

(3.) THE first point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, on the basis of the death of the deceased and the second point for consideration is whether the 3rd respondent should also be made liable for that amount. The finding of the Court below that the deceased was a Revenue Inspector working in the A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation at Bhadrachalam, aged about 30 years and was d; awing a salary of Rs. 600/- per month at the time whan he was killed by the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the 2nd respondent, is fully supported by the evidence. Taking the average longevity of an Indian Citizen as 70 years, as held by a division Bench of this Court in Srisailam Devastanam v. Bhavani Pramilamma and Ors. 1983 ACJ P. 580, it must be held that the deceased would be living for another 40 years more. By the time of his superannuation, he would reached his maximum salary and he would have earned, at least, one promotion and would also have earned, at least, a few pay revisions. Calculating the average monthly pay of the deceased during these 40 years, on the above basis at Rs. 1,000 per month, the deceased would have earned Rs. 4,80,000/-. Taking half of that amount towards his own maintenance, the deceased would have saved at least, to an extent of Rs. 2,40,000/-. In addition to the above, the 1st respondent is entitled to be paid for the loss of consortium during that period which may be put at Rs. 7,500/-. But, in view of the fact that the claimants have limited their claim only to Rs. 1,00,000/-. I think it is proper to award Rs. 1,00,000/- as payable to the claimants. I, accordingly alter the award of the Lower Court in regard to the quantum of compensation and fix at Rs. 1,00,000/-.