THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2048 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the award and decree dated 15-09-2008 in O.P.No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional Chairman-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge at Secunderabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants Mr. Vladimeer Khatoon and learned counsel for the respondent-RTC Mr. Thoom Srinivas. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts are that on 15-11-2005 at about 19.30 hours, while the deceased M.N.Rajesh was proceeding towards Risalabazar from Thurkapally on Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP 10 RA-T/R 6502 as rider and when he reached Air Force Station Sub Guard Room near Sai Dhaba, the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 7479 driven it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where doctor declared that he died. The claimants have filed OP., claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident.
4. Respondent-RTC filed counter denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus and the death of the deceased in the 2 LK, J MA CMA.No.2048 of 2011 accident, his age, avocation and earnings. He submits that the claim is highly excessive and exorbitant.
5. The Tribunal on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence though granted compensation of Rs.6,88,948/- it restricted to the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal while applying the multiplier took the age of the mother of the deceased instead of the age of the deceased and granted compensation. He submits that the Honourable Apex Court in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another1 has observed that the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration.
7. This Court is not able to entertain the appeal filed by the claimants. Firstly on the ground that when the claimants have claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Tribunal though assessed compensation at Rs.6,88,948/- granted the entire compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as such, the claimants cannot be termed as aggrieved parties. Secondly, the ground with regard to taking the age of the mother of the deceased, as on the date when the award was passed, as per the existing legal position, the age of the mother was considered and there was no error committed by the Tribunal. In Sarla Varma's case (cited supra), no such law was laid down by the Apex Court and even if such law is laid 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 3 LK, J MA CMA.No.2048 of 2011 down by the apex Court, that was in the month of April, 2009, whereas this appeal is filed in the month of March, 2009 and on that date, the appellants-claimants cannot be termed as aggrieved parties. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed.
____________________________ SMT LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 11th April, 2023.
sj