United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Tadagir Radha
ÐÏࡱá>þÿ 24þÿÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð¿bjbjUU ),7|7|-W%ÿÿÿÿÿÿlpppŒ¤¤¤ ̧8Nb ̧üøŠŠ"¬¬¬¬¬¬{}}}}}}$ô f¡¤¬¬¬¬¬¡j¤¤¬¬¶jjj¬B¤¬¤¬{j¬{j&j¤¤W¬~P¡.RŸÐ ̧^îú#W$Ì0ü+,zè‚zWj ̧ ̧¤¤¤¤ÙHONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CMA No.696 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The second respondent-insurer among the two respondents including the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP -9U-6140 impugning the award dated 5.09.2003 in O.P.No.1011 of 1998 in the claim filed under Section 166 of the M.V.Act by the four claimants none other than wife, parents and minor son of the deceased Tadagiri Giri @ Girmaiah, aged about 22 years as per Ex.A.4 P.M.E report, in the claim for Rs.
8,00,000/- since awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.5,74,000/- with interest at 9% per annum, maintained the appeal with contentions in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal went wrong in not fixing contributory negligence, also went wrong in taking Rs.48,000/- per annum towards the earnings of the deceased estimated for the accident dated 21.09.1998. Even what is claimed under Ex.A.5 pahani of owning Ac.5.01 cents of land succeeded by the claimants but for any supervisory loss of income and thereby while fixing contributory negligence reduce the quantum of compensation and also the rate of interest being excessive and exorbitant. 2. Learned counsel for the insurer reiterated the same.
Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants 1 to 4 that the award of the Tribunal holds good but for no cross objections the compensation awarded is utterly low. Hence to dismiss the appeal for no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 3. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. Now, the points that arise for consideration are: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, so also, rate of interest and whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased scooterist to fix and if so with what observations and what contentions and what rate of interest? To what result? Point No.1: 5. As per the evidence on record of PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.
5, the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry of the first respondent insured with second respondent. No doubt, both the vehicles ie., the deceased on his scooter and the lorry at the time of accident at 5:00 P.M. in bright day light were proceeding in opposite direction. There is no oath against oath from the respondents to say there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased scooterist. Even the evidence on record categorically establishes that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the first respondent, that too, when the Tribunal having fresh in mind of facts by recording evidence and arrived to the conclusion, for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to fix any contributory negligence of the scooterist. 6.
Coming to the quantum of compensation and rate of interest, no doubt Rs.48,000/- per annum taken as earnings of the deceased from cultivation is excessive as on the date of accident in September 1998 as land is succeeded by the claimants and what they lost is only supervision of cultivation by the deceased. As per Lata Wadhwa v State of Bihar in the absence of proof of earnings, Rs.3,000/- per month has to be taken. Hence, even taken at Rs.3,000/- per month and if 1/4th deducted towards personal expenses as claimants are 4 in number as per Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation the loss of dependency comes to Rs.27,000/- per annum and the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the said expression + loss of consortium to first claimant Rs.1,00,000/- funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-, loss of estate Rs.
10,000/- care and guidance to the minor child Rs.10,000/- and thus in all what the Tribunal awarded of Rs.5,74,000/- is no way excessive but for to reduce rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum vide Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh and Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya . Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. Point No.2: 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed while confirming the quantum of compensation, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Rest of the terms of the award of the Tribunal holds good. There is no order as to costs. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr.B.SIVA SANKARA RAO,J Date: 6th March, 2015 PNV (2001) 8 SCC 197 2009 ACJ 1298.
2013 ACJ 1403=(4)ALT-35(SC). (2005) 6 SCC 236 PAGE PAGE 3 )FG" €œž h''";QRSWz{¥±•ðþHIc‚„'÷íêãØã÷É÷ãÁãμ¦÷ãμ•Š÷μxãØãoãoãjd\d5H*OJQJ5OJQJOJQJCJOJQJ^J#j0J5CJOJQJU\^J@ˆ(CJOJQJ^J!j0J@ˆ(C ? A z ƒ"" 6¤¥±ðñ÷÷òêêêêêÞÖÖÍÁêêòμê¬$„Ð`„Ða$$„Ðdà`„Ða$$„Ðdà^„Ða$$„Ð^„Ða$$ &Fa$$„hdà`„ha$$dàa$$a$$dàa$-îýýýñIc{''-- a»Úíîðñóôö÷ùúõððîîîæääääîîîîîîîîîÛÙîÛÙ„üÿ„&`#$$dàa$$a$ $dà¤xa$'-- ̃TMa«»1⁄4ÙÚÛìîïñòôõ÷øúû ÷ðëÜÓ·ÓÜÓ2222« ̈« ̈« ̈« « ̈0JmHnHu0J j0JU jUCJOJQJ^JaJ!j0JCJOJQJU^JaJCJOJQJaJj0JCJOJQJUaJmH @sH @ j0JU5CJOJQJ!ýýõ$dàa$' 0&P1h°Ò/ °ÃN!
°"°#$%° i8@ñÿ8NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH <A@òÿ¡<Default Paragraph Font6@ò6 Footnote TextCJaJ8&@¢8Footnote ReferenceH*,@,Header Æ9r &)@¢!&Page Numberœ' Qz$CVY,ÿÿÿÿ)<=GW ̈?Azƒ"" 6¤¥±ðñIc{''- -a»Úíîðóöù ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃ 0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€š0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€š@0€€ ̃@0€€ ̃@0€€ ̃@0€€ 0š@0€€š@0€€š@0€€š@0€€š@0€€ ̃@0€€ ̃@0€€ 0 $$$$$''ñ '!•!ÿ•€©®&y‚†‰'Z` *ÉÌ ̃š¡ « )3€„...‹h m n s EKuzäécl- îîððññóôö÷ùú46ØßôúP§šœ'ÇË ̧•xz...‹-¬oÌÑîîððññóôö÷ùú333333333333ûü-- íîîððññóôö÷ùúÿÿpnvR:\SSRB,J\cma_696_04.docpnvR:\SSRB,J\cma_696_04.
docpnvOC:\Users\pnv\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Word\A save of cma_696_04.asdpnvR:\SSRB,J\cma_696_04.docpnvOC:\Users\pnv\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of cma_696_04.asdpnvR:\SSRB,J\cma_696_04.docpnvR:\SSRB,J\cma_696_04.docpnvR:\SSRB,J\cma_696_04.docpnvR:\SSRB,J\cma_69 +1⁄2'L|l2ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ„Є ̃þÆÐ^„Ð`„ ̃þo()€ „ „ ̃þÆ ^„ `„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „p„LÿÆp^„p`„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „@„ ̃þÆ@^„@`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „„ ̃þÆ^„`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „à„LÿÆà^„à`„Lÿ‡hˆH.€ „°„ ̃þÆ°^„°`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.€ „€„ ̃þÆ€^„€`„ ̃þ‡hˆH.‚ „P„LÿÆP^„P`„Lÿ‡hˆH. +1⁄2'ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ •ïDÿ@€ää|"äÇ@@ÿÿUnknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿGï:àAxÀ ÿTimes New Roman5€Symbol3&ÿ:àCxÀ ÿArialA&‡ŸTrebuchet MS"1ˆðÐhéƒ4‡Ê*6§9Ó,§Z‹ˆ# *éðx ́‚0Ï«"2ƒQðHPÿÿMACMA 952 OF 2007 Vasundharapnvþÿà...
ŸòùOh«'+'3Ù0t ̃ ́ÀÔàð ü $0< HT\dläMACMA 952 OF 2007dACMVasundharaFasuNormalapnv22Microsoft Word 9.0@œ¦'@:6VÝ Ð@R)£- xÐ@ ̧RŸÐ‹þÿÕÍÕœ."-+,ù®0øhp|„Œ"œ¤¬ ́ 1⁄4Úä Ï MACMA 952 OF 2007Title þÿÿÿ þÿÿÿ"#$%&'(þÿÿÿ*+,- ./0þÿÿÿýÿÿÿ3þÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀFP°.RŸÐ5€1TableÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿzWordDocumentÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ),SummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿ!DocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ)Co ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.