G KRISHNA Vs. S NARENDER REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in Op No. 660 of 1997 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, Hyderabad.

(2.) THE claimants-appellants are the parents of G. Ravi Kiran Goud @ Ravi Kiran who died in a motor accident on 13. 4. 1997 at 9 a. m. They laid a claim in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 whereas the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 81,000.00 as compensation. Hence this appeal.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed further in the matter, it is appropriate to notice the contradictions in the claim relating to the age of the deceased. Ex. Al is the FIr lodged by the father of the deceased, who is none other than the 1st appellant herein. In his complaint to the Inspector of Police, Kushaiguda Police Station, he has described the age of the deceased Ravi Kiran Goud as 16 years. Ex. A2 is the charge-sheet which also refers to the age of the deceased to be 16 years. Ex. A4 is the inquest report. It was prepared on the date of the accident itself. There is a correction therein, appearing to a naked eye, that the age of the deceased was corrected from 15 to 16. Ex. A5 is the post-mortem certificate dated 13. 4. 1997. There also the correction of the age of the deceased from 15 to 16 years is clearly visible both on page 1 as well as at page 2. Thus, the age of the deceased is sought to be inflated. In fact, Ex. A6 and A7 which are the scholastic record of the deceased for the academic year 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively clearly discloses that the deceased passed 8th standard during the academic year 1995-96 and was in fact studying 9th class at the time the accident had occurred. He was about to be promoted to 10th class as Ex. A7 has disclosed his annual examination marks for 9th standard. The normal average age of bright children would be in the range of 15 or 16 years by the time they complete the 10th class examinations. The deceased appears to be a bright student as disclosed by Exs. A7 and A8 - his scholastic record. He just completed 9th class examinations. Therefore, he may not have been beyond 15 years of age at the time of the accident. Conscious effort is therefore, made to slightly inflate the age of the deceased. At the time of the accident, he was found wearing a nicker (i. e. , shorts) and obviously he is not beyond the age of 15 years, for him to move out to the stage of putting on trousers. In the claim statement, the age of the deceased is mentioned purposefully as 17 years.