HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2402 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel for the insurer/respondent No.2 and learned counsel for the claim petitioners.
2. The appeal has been filed by the insurer/2nd respondent challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and award dated 04.10.2005 in O.P.No.419 of 2003 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.01.2003 the deceased/Rathod Ganapathi @ Lambani Ganapathi (for short "deceased") was going to Burugupally village from Ambakanti on a bicycle and on the way at about 02:00 PM one jeep bearing No.AP-15- V-499 driven by its driver at high speed dashed the deceased from behind due to which the deceased received grievous and multiple fractures all over the body and was shifted to Government Hospital, Nirmal where from he was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad and while undergoing treatment succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The wife, children and mother of the 2 NBK, J MACMA_2402_2007 deceased filed the petition claiming loss of dependency for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
4. The learned Tribunal, on analyzing the evidence concluded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep and awarded Rs.5,57,500/- with 9% interest per annum as compensation by holding the owner and insurer of the jeep/1st and 2nd respondents as jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. In appeal, the insurer/2nd respondent (hereinafter 'the respondent') contended that the tribunal without any tenable material erroneously taken the age of the deceased at 44 years and his earnings at Rs.150/- per day and erred in applying the multiplier. It is further contended that the tribunal erred in awarding compensation by coming to a wrong conclusion that driver of the jeep at the time of the accident had valid driving license to drive the jeep.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant (hereinafter 'the petitioners') would submit that the tribunal had rightly considered the material on record in deterring the essential aspects in granting the compensation, however the future prospects was not taken into account and meager amounts were granted under conventional heads. Though the petitioner is entitled for 3 NBK, J MACMA_2402_2007 more compensation, no appeal to that effect was filed. Therefore, considering the aspects, prayed for reassessment and to award just and proper compensation.
7. In these rival pleas, the point arises for determination is:
"Whether the compensation granted to the petitioners by the tribunal is just and proper"?
8. The rival contention putforth by the respondent before this Court is to the effect that the tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that the driver of the jeep had valid driving license at the relevant period of accident and contended that the R-1 had violated the insurance policy terms and conditions by authorizing the A-1 to drive the jeep though he knew that he had no valid driving license to drive the jeep.
9. In the charge sheet/Ex.A-2 it is clear that the original driver E.Ravi who was figured as A-2 allowed A-1 cleaner of the jeep to drive the vehicle and the accident took place while A-1 who was cleaner driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In this regard, the contention of the respondent is that the A-1 is not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. At this juncture, it is pertinent to look at terms and conditions of Ex.A-7 learners license, which is on the name of A-1. On a perusal of terms and conditions of Ex.A-7, it is clear that 4 NBK, J MACMA_2402_2007 the holder of learner's license was prohibited from driving any motor vehicle unless he has besides him a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle. Now coming to the present case, on a perusal of Ex.A-7 it is clear that A-1 is holding learner's license and as per the terms and conditions in Ex.A-7, A-2 was besides the A-1 while driving the jeep who is holding valid driving license. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the A-1 had valid driving license to drive the jeep at the time of accident and the stand taken by the learned tribunal in this regard is affirmed and warrants no interference.
10. The further contention advanced by the respondent is that R-1 owner of the jeep violated the insurance policy terms and conditions by authorizing A-1 to drive the jeep without there being valid driving license to A-1 to drive the motor vehicle. As discussed above, it is clear that the R-1 had only authorized the A-2 who is the original driver of the jeep to drive the jeep and it is the A-2 who allowed the A-1 to drive the jeep at the relevant period of accident that too by sitting besides A-1 while driving the jeep. Therefore, it cannot be said that the R-1 had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5 NBK, J
MACMA_2402_2007
11. The first petitioner as PW-1 deposed that by the date of accident deceased was aged about 44 years and was an agricultural coolie with annual income of Rs.60,000/. The petitioner did not file any particular document to prove the age. However, the Inquest Report/Ex.A-3 and Postmortem examination report/Ex.A-4 are disclosing the age of the deceased at 44. Thus, the age of the deceased by the date of accident can safely be taken at 44 years and the view adopted by the learned tribunal holds good.
12. With regard to the income the deceased, PW-1/wife of the deceased deposed that as an agricultural coolie her deceased husband used to earn Rs.60,000/- per annum. In support of this, the petitioners/claimants have filed Ex.A-8 Pahani for the year 2002-03 and Ex.A-11 Pattedar pass book, on a perusal of the same it reveals that the deceased was cultivating 5-00 acres of land prior to his death and a person cultivating Ac.5-00 of land can earn Rs.150/- per day so that his monthly income would be Rs.4500/- and the conclusion of the learned tribunal on this aspect can be accepted. Having regard to the aforementioned discussion, the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death can be taken as Rs.4,500/- and this Court feels not to interfere with the findings on this aspect.
6 NBK, J
MACMA_2402_2007
13. Now coming to the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal erred in awarding interest on compensation @ 9% per annum instead of fixing at 6% per annum. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is that the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1. Hence, the interest granted by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is reduced to 7.5% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs.5,57,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realization. Except the said modification, the remaining operative portion of the impugned order is confirmed.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by reducing the interest from 9% to 7.5% on the compensation amount of Rs.5,57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 08.11.2023 VRKS 1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 7 NBK, J MACMA_2402_2007 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.2402 OF 2007 08.11.2023 VRKS