Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Sankaramma And Another vs Venkateswara Engineering And ... on 2 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2000)ACC629, 2002ACJ599, 2000(3)ALD360, 2000(3)ALT112, 2000 A I H C 2596, (2000) 3 ANDH LT 112, (2000) 2 TAC 644, (2000) 3 ANDHLD 360, (2000) 2 ACC 629, (2002) 1 ACJ 599
ORDER
1. The claimants filed this civil miscellaneous appeal against the order and decree dated 6-7-1994 in OP No.286 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The first appellant is the mother and the second appellant is the brother of the deceased Vykunta Narayana.
2. The appellants field the petition before the Tribunal below stating that the deceased Vykunta Narayana died in the lorry accident on 31-3-1993 at about 2.30 p.m., on R. Konthalapadu-Sunkesula road while he was going on his cycle, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry Bearing No.AIH 5797 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent herein.
3. The Tribunal below after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the appellants-claimants have filed to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry Bearing No.AIH 5797 by its driver and therefore awarded only an amount of Rs.25,000/-
towards compensation under 'no fault liability'. The Tribunal below further held that the first appellant-claimant who is the mother of the deceased is alone entitled for the said compensation amount and that the second appellant-claimant who is neither Class-I legal heir nor dependent upon the deceased is not entitled for any compensation.
4. In support of the claim of the appellants, the first appellant-claimant was examined as PW1 and one M. Ercama, who is an eye witness to the accident was examined as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. The first appellant-claimant (PW1) has stated in her evidence that her deceased son was aged about 20 years and he was about to marry and he was working as a carpenter and was earning Rs.100/- per day. They have got Ac.0.50 cents of land and getting the yield of Rs.5,000/- per year from the said land. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Cr. No.9 of 1993 of Gudur Police Station. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Post-mortem certificate. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and Ex.A5 is the certified copy of charge-sheet. She was also cross-examined, in which she has stated that the deceased was giving Rs.100/- per day for family expenses. 'PW2 namely, M. Eranna, who is an eye witness to the accident has stated in his evidence that on the day of the accident at about 2.00 p.m., himself and the deceased were going to the fields on the cycle of the deceased and when they reached near Sunkesula Dam, the lorry came from behind with high speed and went ahead of the cycle and stopped and again came back to take a turn and in the process, dashed against the deceased, who was sitting on the carriage of the cycle and that the deceased fell underneath the lorry and sustained injuries on the chest and other parts of the body and that PW2 brought the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, in another lorry. At the time of the accident, the lorry was loaded with sand. PW2 was also cross-examined in which he has stated that the lorry driver took the turn with speed. Ex.A1 FIR discloses that the deceased Vykunta Narayana died in the lorry accident that occurred on 31-3-1993. No doubt, the said FIR does not clearly disclose the entire manner in which the accident took place. But Ex.A2 the Inquest report clearly discloses that while the deceased was going from R. Kunthalapadu village to Sunkesula side towards his groundnut field on a cycle at about 2.30 p.m., one lorry bearing No.AIH 5797 came in a high speed rashly and negligently and hit the cyclist and in that accident the deceased-cyclist died. Ex.A5 charge-sheet reads as follows:
"On 31-3-1993 one Kammari Veeranna and Vykunta Narayana (deceased) left K. Konthalapadu village at about 2.00 p.m., on a cycle in order to go to Rajoli, K. Veeranna was peddling the cycle while Vykunta Narayana (deceased) was sitting on the back side carrier of cycle. At about 2.30 p.m., they were proceeding on the cycle on the left side of the road and when they reached towards Dam site road, the lorry AIH 5797 driven by its driver came at a high speed went ahead by over taking in the cycle and suddenly stopped and came in reverse direction in order to go to left side road to unload the sand and dashed against the cycle which was going on the side of the road. As a result, the pillion rider of cycle received multiple injuries on his person, while Veeranna escaped unhurt. The injured Vykunta Narayana was taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Kurnool for treatment by the said Veeranna, where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment".
This is the evidence available on record. But the Tribunal below without any justification came to a conclusion that the appellants-claimants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. It is not known what more evidence the Tribunal below requires when the respondents are failed to adduce any contra evidence. I, therefore, held that the deceased Vykunta Narayana died due to the fault of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AIH 5797 on 31-3-1993 at 2.30 p.m., near Sunkesula village as alleged by the appellants-claimants.
5. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the first appellant-claimant has stated in her evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day. But the said evidence is not supported by any documentary evidence. Therefore, I feel it just and proper to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.450/- per month and if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, the contribution to the family will be at Rs.300/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs.3,600/-. The deceased was aged 20 years and the multiplier applicable in this case is '17'. Thus the loss of dependency will be Rs.61,200/- (Rs.3,600/- x 17). Further I award an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.65,700/-. The first appellant who is the mother of the deceased is alone entitled to Rs.65,700/- towards compensation. The second appellant who is the brother of the deceased is not a legal heir and therefore he is not entitled for any compensation.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal below is modified awarding Rs.65,700/- to the 1st appellant towards compensation payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. No costs.