M/S.Chermas Exquisite Limited vs Employees State Insurance ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3437 Tel

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
                     AT HYDERABAD
                (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

                       PRESENT
      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.133 of 2007

Between:

Koppu Gurranna and sons,
Rep. by Managing Partner,
K.V.S.Prakasa Rao, R/o.Vizianagaram
                                                   ..... Appellant

AND

1.Meesala Ramana and 2 others.
                                              .....Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.M.Jagannatha Sarma

Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.G.Sai Narayana Rao for Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati

Counsel for Respondent No.2: None appeared

The Court made the following :

Judgment:

The appellant, who is the owner of auto, bearing registration No.AP 35T 0293, which was registered as goods vehicle, and respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short 'the

Tribunal'), filed this appeal against award, dated 18th August, 2006, in the above-mentioned OP. By the said award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,800/- towards compensation for partial permanent disability suffered by respondent No.1, the driver of the appellant's auto, in an accident that took place on 28-10-2001.

I have heard Sri M.Jagannatha Sarma, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Sri G.Sai Narayan Rao, learned Counsel representing Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. No one appeared for respondent No.2.

At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant advanced two contentions viz., (1) that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a higher side and (2) that the Tribunal committed an error in not fixing liability on respondent No.2-National Insurance Company Limited, with which the appellant's auto was insured.

With regard to the first contention of the learned Counsel, the Tribunal has taken into consideration, the sum of Rs.50/- as daily wage, accepting the appellant's version, and accordingly, assessed the annual income of

respondent No.1 at Rs.18,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards his personal expenses. As the age of respondent No.1 was 24 years, the multiplier of 17, as prescribed in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was adopted. Accordingly, the Tribunal has worked out the total income of respondent No.1 as Rs.2,04,000/- and awarded 20% of the said income, considering the percentage of disability. In addition to the said amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income as above. This contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is, therefore, rejected.

With regard to the second contention of the learned Counsel that the Tribunal has not made respondent No.2- Insurance Company jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation, it has come out in the evidence that at the time of the accident, respondent No.1 did not hold license to drive a transport vehicle. As this remained an uncontroverted fact, respondent No.2 cannot be held liable for the accident caused by respondent No.1. Taking this into consideration, the Tribunal has excluded respondent No.2 from the liability of payment of compensation. I do not, therefore, find any error in the award of the Tribunal in this regard.

For the abovementioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

________________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th February, 2010 lur