Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Manthani Kittamma vs Tippireddy Veera Reddy And Others on 13 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ2030, 1999(6)ALD738
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal was filed by Manthani Kittamma the wife of the deceased Manthani Shanker, against the judgment and decree dated 27-12-1994 in OP No.152 of 1994 on the file of the Chairman (I Additional District Judge), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar, for enhancement of compensation, for the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 12-12-1993 at about 10-00 a.m. when the deceased was working in Kallam of Manthani Rajaiah for thrashing the paddy crop the first respondent being driver of the tractor bearing No.AIF-693 engaged by the said Rajaiah, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and it gave jerks and the gears of the tractor failed and it fell on the deceased, as a result of which he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Therefore, the widow claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased.
2. The claim was resisted by the respondents 1 and 2, owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, denying the assertions and averments made in the petition that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver and stated that the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant, excessive and therefore, liable to be rejected.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issue:
Whether the petition is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, if so, to what amount?
The Tribunal recorded the evidence of PWi the widow of the deceased, who stated that her husband was working in kallam for thrashing paddy, the respondent No. 1 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased received injuries and he was taken to Government Hospital, Manthani where he succumbed to the injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased working as an agricultural labour and was earning Rs.1200/- per month. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the FIR, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report and Ex.A3 is the certified copy of charge-sheet while Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the post-mortem report.
4. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It rejected the contention of the respondents that the accident was occurred due to the failure of gears, therefore, due to mechanical defect the accident was occurred and the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. Though it is mentioned in the FIR, that the accident was occurred due to the mechanical defect, the driver has to take care of the vehicle before driving it. Therefore, I am satisfied with the findings arrived by the Tribunal below that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver due to which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
5. It is pertinent to note that the Motor Vehicles Inspector who inspected vehicle at the outskirts of Kannala village which was removed from the scene of accident on 16-12-1993 at 15-00 hours and stated that the left side mudguard, steering, wheel, bonnet, radiotor, right hand side mudguard were damaged, steering rod, hose pipe and fan belt were also damaged. According to him, the accident did not take place due to the the mechanical defects in the vehicle. The Motor Vehicle Inspector is a competent person to tender his opinion whether or not the accident was occurred due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. Therefore, I am not satisfied with the reasons arrived at by the Tribunal below rejecting the compensation as claimed by the appellant on the ground that the adopted father of the deceased himself has not stated in his complaint to the police that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the tractor driver. As seen from the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who is a competent person to tender his opinion, it is abundantly clear that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor; as he should have been mindful of the persons working in the kallam, like the deceased. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal below is not based on the facts and circumstances and not in accordance with law. That apart, it is also the duty of the driver to test the vehicle before taking it on to the road and keep it roadworthy.
6. This appeal was filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.25,000/-to Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by her. The age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of his death. Therefore, the proper multiplier that is applicable is 17. As asserted by the appellant, the deceased was earning Rs.1200/- per month as an agricultural labourer. But in all these matters, I am taking the income of the agricultural labourers at Rs.900/- per month. Therefore, after deducting l/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the appellant comes to Rs.7,200/- per annum. Therefore, applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of future dependency comes to Rs.1,22,400/-.
7. The appellant lost the company of her husband at her young age of 20 years. Therefore, she is entitled to a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards non-pecuniary damages. Thus the appellant, in all, is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,47,000/-.
8. Corning to the second limb of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent, the appellant was aged 20 years and there is every likelihood of she being remarried and therefore, the question of enhancement of compensation by this Court is unwarranted.
9. To meet the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent, I have surveyed the case law on the above point. But except one or two High Courts, all other High Courts have expressed uniform opinion that if compensation is not awarded to the widow of the deceased on the ground that there is likelihood of her getting remarried, it amounts to discouraging widow re-marriage. Therefore, following the judicial pronouncements of various High Courts I have no hesitation in holding that the presumption of the widow getting remarried is not a bar to grant compensation, to which she is otherwise legally entitled to.
10. The compensation has to be awarded to the widow of the fatal accident, as she lost the company of the deceased which leaves a stigma and which forbids her from participation in some of the functions performed by some of the married ladies. The appellant will be crushed by the evil practices prevalent in the society from the times immemorial and but for the stigma she would not be welcomed to the functions performed by Punya stris like vratas, etc. Therefore, I reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that there is likelihood of the appellant getting remarried, she is not entitled to the enhanced compensation.
11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enchancing the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.l,47,000/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No costs.
12. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines envisaged in Lilaben U. Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Company and others, , in respect of the enhanced compensation.