Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt. Sukhinder Anand vs Khaza Vazir Ali (Minor) And Others on 8 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994ACJ786, AIR1994AP343, 1994(2)ALT629, AIR 1994 ANDHRA PRADESH 343, (1994) 2 TAC 593, (1994) 2 ANDH LT 629, (1994) 2 ACJ 786, (1994) 1 LS 241
JUDGMENT
1. The first petitioner in O.P.No. 613 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Medak at Sangareddy is the appellant herein. She is the wife of late Jagjit Singh Anand (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who died in a motor accident that took place on 21-12-1982 around 8.30 a.m. near Dudheda Village. She filed O.P. No. 613 of 1984 along with her daughter and son, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in the petition.
2. The facts of the case are that on the fateful day, the deceased was travelling in a car bearing number A AX 4001 from Hyderabad to Ramagundam. When it reached Dudheda village, a lorry bearing number ADT 5163, coming in the opposite direction dashed against the car, resulting in instantaneous death of the driver of the car and grievous injuries to the deceased. The deceased, who became unconscious, was shifted to Jaslok Hospital, Bombay, where he died on 11-1-1983.
3. Before the Claims Tribunal, the wife and son of the deceased were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2, respectively. Exs. A-l to A-22 were marked through them. The driver of the lorry bearing number ADT 5163 has been examined as R.W. 1 and Ex. B-l, a copy of the insurance policy, has been marked by consent. The Claims Tribunal having held that the petitioners would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 54,000/- i.e., Rupees 39,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rupees 15,000/- towards loss of consortium, dismissed the petition by judgment dated 30th July, 1988 on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove rashness and negligence on the. part of the driver of the lorry. Hence this appeal.
4. Sri M. Shankar Ram, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that in view of Ex. A-13, a certified copy of the judgment in C. C. No. 119 of 1983 on the file of Munsif Magistrate at Siddipet, whereunder R.W. 1 was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.800/- on his plea of guilty, no further evidence is necessary to prove his negligence. He further submits'that the Claims Tribunal on this basis of Ex. A-13 should have held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of R.W. 1. With regard to the quan: turn of compensation, his submission is that what has been assessed by the Claims Tribunal is in contrary to evidence and too meagre. In opposition, it is contended by Sri Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, that the judgment under appeal is correct in all aspects. Therefore, the points that emerge for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plea of guilty made by R.W. 1 before the M.M. at Siddipet in C.C. No. 119/83 is sufficient to hold him responsible for rash and negligent driving in the present claim petition?
2. Whether the amount of compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable?
5. It is not in dispute that R.W. 1 was convicted in C.C. No. 119 of 1983 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate at Siddipet, on his plea of guilty. However, he deposed before the Claims Tribunal that he was not negligent in driving the lorry and the accident was entirely due to the negligence of the driver of the Ambassador Car in which the deceased was travelling! In the cross-examination, he stated that he pleaded guilty for the reason that he was harassed by the police and he was made to attend the Court frequently. On perusal of Ex. A-13,1 find that this statement is apparently false, for he pleaded guilty on the very first day i.e., on 30th March, 1983 he appeared before the Munsif Magistrate at Siddipet. Even otherwise, I am of the view that he cannot be permitted to resile from the statement he made in the Criminal Court. This view of mine is fortified by a decision of Madras High Court in Govind Singh v. A. S. Kallasam, . Dealing with an identical question, Natarajan, J., observed:
"..... .Thus it may be seen that the earliest version of R.W. 1 is at variance with his evidence in Court and that version is to the effect that the car hit the pedestrian. More significant is the fact that, when R.W. 1 was prosecuted for an offence under Section 337, I.P.C., he has voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him. After having admitted-before the Criminal Court that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving of the car, there is hardly any force in the present contention of R.W. 1 that he did not drive the car rashly or negligently and that he was not to be blamed for the accident. It is no doubt seen that R.W. 1 has attempted to reconcile the conflicting positions by projecting a story that his plea of guilt before the Criminal Court was not one of truth, but was one of the convenience, viz., to avoid making frequent visits to the Court to defend the case. This explanation is hardly convincing and, at any rate, cannot be allowed to be successfully projected by R.W. I. An admission against his interest made by R.W, 1 either before the Tribunal or elsewhere, has got to be taken into account in rendering a decision on the relative stands taken by the parties in the controversy. In the face of his own admission in connected proceedings arising out of the same incident it is futile for R.W. 1 to contend that the accident was not due to his negligence. This important aspect of the case has been totally lost sight of by the Tribunal."
6. I am in respectful agreement with the above view. I am also of the view that in view of Ex. A-l 3 no further evidence is necessary to prove that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of R.W. 1. It follows, the Claims Tribunal was not correct in holding that the petitioners failed to prove negligence of the driver of the lorry.
7. On the quantum of compensation, the Claims Tribunal, placing reliance on Ex. A-17, salary statement of the deceased, has taken the gross salary of deceased as Rs. 39,000,'- per year. It may be noted that Ex. A-17 represents the salary of the deceased for the period from April to December, 1982. On the other hand, Ex. A-21, income-tax assessment order for the year (982-83, gives the correct picture of the income of the deceased. As per the said document, the income of the deceased by way of salary was Rs.49,200/-. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to reject this document. Relying upon the same, I fix the income of the deceased by way of salary as Rs.49,200/-per annum.
8. As on the date of the accident, the age of the deceased was 57 years and odd. The Claims Tribunal, merely relying upon the multiplier table formulated by M. Jagan-nadha Rao, J,, as he then was in Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137 adopted a multiplier of 2. In the present case, the deceased who was an Electrical Engineer, having taken voluntary retirement from the Indian Navy, accepted the assignment as Consultant in Tata Consulting Engineers, a reputed organisation. It has come in the evidence of P.W.I that as the terms of agreement, he could have continued in the said post till 1987. It is significant to note that.
there is no cross-examination whatsoever on this aspect. In the circumstances, I am of the view, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in adopting only a multiplier of 2. In my considered view, it would be just and proper to adopt a multiplier of 4.
9. Relying upon Ex. A-21,1 have already fixed the annual salary of the deceased as Rs. 49,200/-. Out of it, even if Rs. 19,200/- is deducted towards his personal expenses, his contribution for the maintenance of the family shall be fixed as Rs. 30.000/- per annum. To that extent, the petitioners have suffered the monetary loss due to the death of the deceased. Thus, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ - (Rs. 30,000 x 4), towards the loss of dependency.
10. The appellant has claimed Rupees 25,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium, but no claim is made towards medical expenses and pain and suffering. It is not in dispute that the deceased had undergone treatment in Jaslok Hospital for about three weeks. Having regard to these facts, I consider it proper to award a sum of Rupees 5,000/-towards consortium and Rs. 15,000/-towards medical expenses and pain and suffering. Thus, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
11. The petitioners are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased. The daughter and son are majors and there is no evidence as to their loss of dependency. However, in view of the fact that they are the legal heirs of the deceased, I consider it proper to award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each. Thus, the 1st petitioner will be entitled to the remaining amount" of Rs. l,00,000/-.
12. Ex. B-l is the insurance policy of the lorry that caused the accident, and the same is valid for the period from21-IO-1982 to 20-10-1983. Thus, there was a valid insurance as on the date of the accident. R.W. 3, viz., New India Assurance Company Limited, in its written statement, has admitted its liability to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Therefore, I direct that the . compensation of Rupees 1,40,000/- and interest thereon shall be paid by the third respondent.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. There will be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.