NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GOWNERI GANULAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The New India Assurance Company Limited, Chittoor, filed this appeal against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below granting Rs.1,40,000/- with 12% interest per annum taking into consideration the contribution made by the deceased who was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and earning Rs.4,800/- per year and applied multiplier 30 and arrived at Rs. 1,44,000/- but rounded off to Rs.1,40,000/-

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the application of multiplier 30 is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He further contended that the deceased travelled on the load of the trialor and as per Rule 252 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. To appreciate the above said contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to state brief facts of the case: On 24-7-1990 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased, who was working as agricultural coolie near B. Kothakota on the tank bound, fell down from the tractor of the first respondent which was insured with the second respondent due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years and earning Rs.1,000/- per month. Due to the impact of the accident, he died on the spot and therefore, they claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- under "no fault liability" and Rs.2,20,000/- under "fault liability". This claim was resisted by the respondents by filing a counter-affidavit that the deceased was never employed by the first respondent and the accident occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor. Finally, it is stated that the claim made by the dependents of the deceased was exorbitant, high and liable to be rejected. Based on oral and documentary evidence adduced by both claimants and respondents and scrutiny of documents Exs.Al to A3 and Exs.B1 to B5, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and therefore, respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) Coming to the determination of compensation awardable to the claimants it was asserted by claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.40/- per day as an agricultural coolie. But, based on the evidence of RWs.l and 2 and PWs.l to 3, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.500/- per month and he was contributing an amount of Rs.400/- per month. As he was aged about 30 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 30 as he is going to earn upto 60 years and arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,40,000/- It is true as submitted by Counsel for the appellant, that as per the decision of Supreme Court in UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra, the maximum multiplier applicable is 18 and instead of 18, the Tribunal has applied 30 multiplier, which is contrary. Though it was asserted by the claimants that the deceased was aged about 26 years, the age was not mentioned either in the FIR or in the inquest report. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 30 years. If the age of the deceased was taken as 26 years, the applicable multiplier is 17. As asserted by the claimants, he was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. If Rs. 1,000/- per month is taken as income, one-third is deducted towards personal expenses. The contribution for the maintenance of his family will be Rs.660/- which can be rounded off to Rs.600/-. The loss of future dependency works out to Rs. 1,22,400/- and wife of the deceased is aged less than 25 years and she is entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and non-pecuniary damages. In all, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,47,400/-. Therefore, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and I am not inclined to disturb the same. Therefore, the first contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is rejected and the Tribunal has awarded compensation applying multiplier of 30 instead of 17. Rule 252 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prohibits travelling of labourer on the load in the goods vehicles. In the present case, as alleged by the Counsel for the appellant, the deceased travelled on the load of goods in the trialor of respondent No.l and therefore, the company is not liable to pay the compensation. Rule 252(2) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which is relevant for the purpose of the present case reads: "No person shall be carried in a goods vehicle upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such person is in danger of falling from the vehicle and in no case shall any person be carried in a goods vehicles, in such a manner that any part of his person when he is in sitting position is at a height exceeding 3 metres from the surface which the vehicle rests."