Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Suram Tirumala Mrudula, vs A. Narasimha Reddy on 3 May, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.387 of 2021
JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard learned counsel for the appellants when the matter
came up for admission.
2. The appellants are the claimants in M.V.O.P. No. 460 of 2016
on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum
- IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.
3. On 16.05.2016, the husband of the 1st claimant and the father
of the 2nd claimant by name T. Muralidhar met with a motor
accident. While he was going on a motorcycle to RTC zonal workshop
road, the driver of the Scorpio vehicle bearing AP 04 N 3033 driving
the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of
Muralidhar and he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident
and eventually succumbed to the said injuries.
4. The claimants, who are his wife and daughter, laid the claim
for a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- towards compensation.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and on
appreciation of the same, found that the accident occurred due to
2
rash and negligent driving of the said Scorpio vehicle by its driver
and recorded a finding to that effect. Further, as the deceased was
working in D.R.D.A. and earning Rs.30,378/- per month and as he
was found to be aged about 49 years as per Ex.B-1 Aadhar Card in
which he was shown as born in the year 1967, the Tribunal rejected
the contention of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 42
years and thereby applied multiplier 13, which is applicable to the
age group of the deceased and accordingly awarded compensation of
Rs.31,59,468/- towards loss of dependency along with compensation
awarded under the other heads including medical expenses. A total
sum of Rs.34,04,468/- was awarded towards compensation to the
claimants.
6. The claimants are now aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation and filed this Appeal seeking enhancement of the said
compensation. The only ground on which they sought for
enhancement is that the Tribunal erroneously has taken the age of
the deceased as 49 years instead of 42 years. Though the claimants
have taken a plea that the deceased was aged about 42 years, they
failed to substantiate the same by adducing any acceptable legal
evidence to that effect. On the other hand, considering the evidence
that was produced by the respondents i.e., Ex.B-1 and B-2 wherein
his year of birth is shown as 1967, the Tribunal arrived at a
conclusion that he was aged about 49 years. Therefore, the said
finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 49 years is
based on evidence on record. Accordingly, an appropriate multiplier
of 13 is applied to his annual earning. Therefore, we do not find any
legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal in
awarding just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the
appellants are not entitled for any enhancement of the said
compensation.
7. Resultantly, the Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_____________________________________
JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Date: 03.05.2023
AKN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 387 of 2021
Date: 03-05-2023
AKN
