RAJKAMAL TRANSPORT Vs. C. SUGNNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN O.P. No. 161 of 1981 an amount of Rs. 99,000/ - with interest at 6 per cent per annum was awarded to the claimants in the petition filed under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). R -1 to whom lorry ATT 319 which was involved in the accident belongs and R -3, the insurance company, preferred C.MA No. 889 of 1983 challenging the said award while the claimants filed C.MA No. 1223 of 1984 claiming enhancement.

(2.) LATE Chadalavada Venkatarao (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), the husband of the 1st claimant, was a member of Rajya Sabha from 1979. When the deceased was proceeding in a car from Vijayawada to Hyderabad on 5.1.1981 the lorry bearing No. ATT 319 and belonging to R -1 was driven rashly and negligently by R -2, the driver and it overtook two lorries ahead of the same and dashed against the car driven by the deceased near Kilesapuram (Mulapadu) at 8.15 a.m. and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident, at the spot. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Judge held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. In view of the material on record, we do not find any reason to differ from the same.

(3.) THE Tribunal held that the deceased was getting Rs. 1,000/ - p.m. towards emoluments as a member of Rajya Sabha and he was spending Rs. 700/ - out of it on his family. Thus the loss of dependency of the claimants, who are the widow and daughters and sons of the deceased, was assessed at Rs. 700/ - p.m. The facts that the deceased was a graduate with diploma in Engineering and he was member of Rajya Sabha in 1979 and his turn would end by 1984 are not in dispute. When the Petitioners claimed that the deceased was aged only 44 years at the time of his death while in the petition it was alleged that he was aged 48 years the Tribunal had not given any finding in regard to the age of the deceased at the time of his death, by observing that it does not matter whether the deceased was aged 48 years or 44 years as he was limiting his earning capacity to 10 years only.