IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2540 OF 2004 Between: 1. The Superintending Engineer, Dam Maintenance, Sundipenta, Srisailam Project. 2. The District Collector, Kurnool. ..... Appellants AND S. Thulasama & another ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2540 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.1196 of 2000, dated 14.02.2003, by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, the appellants/respondents filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The appellants herein, who are the Superintending Engineer, Dam Maintenance, Sudipenta, Srisailam Project and the District Collector, Kurnool, are respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the wife and son of the deceased S. Koteswara Rao, are the claimants in the M.V.O.P.No.1196 of 2000 before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts are as follows: On 29.09.1993 at about 6.00 a.m., while the deceased S. Koteswara Rao along with some others was travelling in a shuttle vehicle bearing No. APM 2087, belonging to the respondents, from Sundipenta to Dam site to attend to his duties at Srisailam project, Kurnool, the driver of the vehicle drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the vehicle fell into a ditch. Nearly eighteen persons, including the deceased, died and several others sustained injuries in that accident. Hence, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. The learned Government pleader filed a counter contending that the Government paid several amounts to the claimants towards funeral expenses, Group Insurance Scheme, Family Benefit Fund, leave encashment and exgratia under Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. Further, the Government provided a job to the wife of the deceased on compassionate grounds. The Respondent No.1 is also getting a family pension of Rs.650/- per month. Thus, there is no monetary loss to the claimants on account of the death of the deceased. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the shuttle vehicle bearing No. APM.2087, resulting in the death of S. Koteswara Rao ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount ?” 7. To substantiate the case of the claimants, P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, is examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B4, which is service register of the deceased Koteswara Rao. 8. On the basis of the material on record, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- to the claimants. Aggrieved of the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred. 9. Most of the facts are not in dispute i.e., about the deceased dying in the accident while travelling in a shuttle vehicle, belonging to the respondents, to attend his duties and the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of that vehicle’s driver, who too died in that accident on account of the vehicle felling into a ditch. It is also not in dispute that the claimant is entitled to compensation. 10. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal? 11. Now the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents (appellants) vehemently contended that as the claimant was paid several amounts as referred supra and P.W.1 is getting pension and she is also employed on compassionate grounds, they are not at all entitled to any further monetary benefits. 12. But unfortunately, this is not the legal position. In spite of providing employment on compassionate grounds and payments of certain amounts towards exgratia etc., the dependents of the deceased would be entitled to compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the deceased. That being the position, it cannot be said that the claimant is not entitled to the compensation. 13. With regard to the quantum of compensation also, the amount of Rs.3,65,000/- awarded to the dependents of the deceased, who was aged around 41 years and earning Rs.2,745/- per month, as there was every chance of his salary going up till his retirement, it cannot be said that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is at high side or excessive. Thus, there are no grounds to reduce the compensation. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no merit to interfere with the impugned order. 15. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 21st October, 2010. KL HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2540 OF 2004 21st October, 2010. KL