Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Mattedu Manikyam And Others on 12 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: II(2000)ACC681, 2001ACJ1197, 2000(1)ALD572, 2000(3)ALT273, 2000 A I H C 758, (2001) 2 ACJ 1197, (2000) 3 ANDH LT 273, (2000) 2 TAC 494, (2000) 1 ANDHLD 572, (2000) 2 ACC 681, (2000) 2 ANDHWR 41
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal was filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, Warangal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30-4-1993 in OP No.43 of 1991 on the file of the Chairman (Additional District Judge), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, for the untimely death of the deceased, Mattedu Issac, the son of the claimants 1 and 2 and brother of the third claimant, in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 18-12-1990 when the deceased was travelling on the tractor Bearing No.AP36 T197 as coolie, belonging to the fourth respondent herein. On the fateful day the deceased alongwith two others who were also working as coolies, while transporting wooden logs, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tractor and trailer, it turned turtle resulting in the death of the said Issac, aged about 20 years at the time of accident and earning a sum fo Rs.1,000/- per month and was a bachelor. The police registered a case in Crime No.75 of 1990. It is an admitted case that the deceased, Jayapal and Ramesh were travelling on the tractor and trailer alongwith the load of the wooden logs belonging to the fourth respondent herein.
2. Based on the oral and documentary evidence of the father of the deceased and PW2, who is a direct witness to the accidenl, and in the absence of oral or documentary evidence behalf of the respondents, the Tribunal below has held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and therefore, the respondents are liable to pay Ihe compensation to the claimants.
3. Coming to the question of the quantum of compensation to which the claimants arc entitled to, the Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased as 20 years. Though the petitioner have asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.1000/- per month, the Tribunal, on a guess work, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.300/- on the ground that the deceased was not having work in all the seasons of the year. After deducting a sum of Rs.100/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.200/-. But ultimately, the Tribunal assessed the contribution to the petitioners at Rs.150/- per month deducting a sum of Rs.50/- as a further cut on account of the marriage of the petitioner in due course. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 19 based upon the principle laid down in the judgment Bhagwandan v. Mohd. Arif, 1987(1) ALT 158, as the deceased hailed from a rural background. Therefore, the Tribunal calculated the future loss of earning at Rs.34,200/-. It further awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life and loss of amenities. Thus it granted a total compensation of Rs.49,200/- which was rounded off to Rs.50,000/-.
4. The Insurance Company has taken a stand that it is not liable to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal below on the ground that the deceased was travelling sitting on the right side of the mud-guard of the tractor; whereas under the policy only one person is allowed to travel on the tractor. Therefore, since the deceased has travelled sitting on the mud-guard of the tractor, contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.
5. Though the Tribunal below has held that the tractor and trailer comes within the meaning of Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, i.e., the goods vehicle, it jointly and severally fixed the liability on the insured and the insurer. The contention of the appellant is that since the deceased travelled sitting on the mud-guard of the tractor, which he is not supposed to travel, the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the compensation.
6. But as seen from the judgment of the Tribunal below, as per the insurance policy, six labourers are allowed to travel in the tractor-trailor, whereas, at the time of occurrence of the accident, only three labourers were travelling on the tractor-trailor, including the deceased. When the tractor comes within the definition of goods vehicle, the question of travelling on the trailer or the tractor does not arise and it does not make any difference. As is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case, the trailer was carrying the load of wooden logs, thus there shall be no space in the trailer to travel in it alongwith the goods, belonging to the owner of the vehicle, who was employer of the deceased. Thus it is clear that they have travelled on the mudguard of the tractor along with the goods for unloading the same. Therefore, it can be viewed that at the time of occurrence of the accident, the deceased travelled on the mudguard of the tractor contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is not correct. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal below is perfectly in accordance with law, when premium was paid for six coolies in respect of the policy covering the tractor.
7. It is pertinent to note here that the Tribunal below has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 19 taking the age of the deceased as 20 years when he was a bachelor. It is a settled principle of law that when the deceased happens to be unmarried, the multiplier has to be reckoned having regard to the age of mother of the deceased. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal below has erroneously adopted the multiplier of 19 taking into account the age of the deceased, when he was a bachelor, therefore, I see substantial force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
8. The age of the mother of the deceased was 45 years. Thus the proper multiplier that is applicable is 13, as per the illustration given by the Supreme Court in the judgment Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996 ACJ 362.
9. I am inclined to point out here that the dependency fixed by the Tribunal is on very low side. The claimants asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.1000/- per month. When there is no contra evidence on behalf of the respondents, the Tribunal should have accepted the same. Instead of assessing the dependency at such rates, the Tribunal assessed the earnings of the deceased at Rs.300/- per month. Therefore, I take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.900/- per month and after deducting Rs.300/- for his personal expenses, his annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.7,200/-. As stated above, the proper multiplier that is applicable is 13. Tints the total loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.93,600/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering, etc., i.e., non-pecuniary damages, which in my opinion is justified. Thus the claimants in all are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,08,600/-which is rounded off to Rs. 1,09,000/-.
10. In the result, the appeal is disposed of granting compensation of Rs. 1,09,0007-wilh interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. From out of the total compensation, the parents are entitled to a sum of Rs.90,000/-in equal proportion and the balance compensation amount after deducting Rs.90,000/- is apportioned in favour of the third claimant. The amount of compensation is ordered to be invested in a fixed deposit for a period of five years in any nationalised bank, nearer to the place of abode of the claimants, and the interest accrued thereon is ordered to be paid to the claimants every month. After expiry of the said period of five years, the claimants are at liberty to approach the Tribunal below for relaxation of the conditions and the Tribunal in its own discretion may release the sums adhering to the principles laiddown by the Supreme Court in Leelaben U. Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, AIR 1996 SC 1606. No costs.