Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Andhra Pradesh R.T.C. vs Pallam Vasudeva Reddy And Ors. on 20 January, 1992
JUDGMENT Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. This C.M.A. is filed against the order and decree dated: 10.3.1989 passed in M.V .O. P. No. 295/87 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Chittoor.
2. The accident occurred on 30.12.1984 at about 9-30 a.m. near Tirupathi. The driver of the bus AAZ 3629 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist and the deceased. At the time of the accident, the cyclist and the deceased were proceeding on their extreme left side of the road. "Due to the accident, both the persons fell down and received multiple fatal injuries. They were shifted to the hospital. The deceased died due to injuries at about 2-30 p.m. and the cyclist received grievous injuries. The rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus is confirmed. The parents of the deceased claimed a sum of Rs. 81,600/- under various heads. Out of that, the learned III Additional District Judge, granted a sum of Rs. 53,000/- under different counts, such as Rs.48,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. Being aggrieved with the granting of Rs.53,000/- the A.P.S.R.T.C, filed this C.M.A.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus cannot be accepted without there being any cogent evidence to that effect. On a perusal of the evidence of the direct witness, it can be said that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The lower Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the rash and negligent act has been proved. In the circumstances, the rash and negligent act is confirmed.
4. With regard to quantum of compensation, Sri C.V. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that the amount of compensation that has been granted is on the high side. According to him, even if the multiplier principle is applied in the case of 15 years boy also, granting of Rs. 53,000/- is on the high side. The court has no power to grant any amount in the case of a death, the head pain and suffering. It is only in the case of an injured person, granting of the amount under the head 'pain and suffering' will arise. The loss of estate of Rs. 48,000/- estimated by the lower Tribunal is on the high side. It is to be observed that in the case of a death of a boy of 12 years, by adopting multiplier principle, so far this Court never granted such a huge amount like in this case. While assessing the damages, the Court must determine the age of the person, potentialities of that person and the loss of dependency. Whether the parents of the deceased arc having only one child or more children has to be taken into consideration in fixing the compensation. In this case, the deceased was a vegetable vendor aged about 12 years.
5. In the case of a death of a person irrespective of age, Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Taking into account the income and the potentialities of the deceased, after completion of 5 years, we can add Rs. 1,000/- per year. If we add Rs. l,000/- per year, it will come to Rs. 7,000/-. For the loss of love and affection we can grant a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. In all the award that can be granted is Rs. 25,000/-(Rs. 15,000 + 7,000 + 3,000). Hence, granting of Rs. 53,000/- is on the high side and the C.M.A. is allowed awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in all counts, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. No costs.