HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.2362 of 2006 JUDGMENT The appellants-claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 09.01.2006, passed in O.P.No.357 of 2001 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the learned Judge dismissed the said O.P. Brief facts of the claim petition are that one P.Rajanna (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was working as driver of the Tipper bearing No.A.P.1-T-9788 of which the 1st respondent herein is owner and employer of the deceased. On 08.08.2000 the deceased had joined duty at I.B.Tandur and while he was driving the said Tipper at about 5.30 P.M., another lorry bearing No.AAO-7686 came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tipper, due to which the front portion of the Tipper was completely damaged and the deceased as well as the driver of the offending lorry had sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was aged 42 years and was earning Rs.5,000/-per month as a driver at the time of the accident. Consequently, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- payable by respondents 1 to 3 for the death of the deceased. The third respondent being the insurer of both the vehicles resisted the claim by filing counter, inter alia, contending that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased P.Rajanna himself and that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. Based on the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased-Poolavena Rajanna died in the accident occurred on 08.08.2000 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AAO-7686 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, having held that the deceased died in the accident occurred due to his own rash and negligent driving of the Tipper bearing No.A.P.1-T-9788 by dashing it to the opposite lorry bearing No.AAO-7688, dismissed the aforesaid O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective and erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tipper driven by its driver i.e., deceased. He further contended that in Ex.A7-certified copy of judgment in O.P.No.456 of 2001, which arises out of the same accident, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the opposite lorry bearing No.AAO-7686 driven by its driver, but not due to the fault of the driver of the Tipper bearing No.A.P-1-T-9788 i.e., the deceased in the present case and the Tribunal without considering this aspect in proper perspective erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself, which is contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, he prays to allow the C.M.A. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondents-Insurance Company submits that the Order of the Claims Tribunal is quite legal and valid and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. I have perused the impugned order and other material available on record, and I find it very difficult to sustain it. The Tribunal failed to adjudicate the matter properly. In Ex.A7-certified copy of judgment in O.P.No.456 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad, which arises out of the same accident, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the opposite lorry bearing No.AAO-7686 driven by its driver and that the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing No.A.P.1-T-9788 i.e., the deceased herein was not responsible for the accident in question. The said award passed in O.P.No.456 of 2001 has become final since the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the said award. The Tribunal without considering this aspect in proper perspective erred in holding that the deceased died in the accident occurred due to his own rash and negligent driving of Tipper bearing No.A.P.1-T-9788. From a perusal of the material on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AAO-7686 driven by its driver. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it has come in the evidence that the deceased was working as driver and was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month, as on the date of his death. Taking into consideration the average income of the deceased, his income can safely be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month which annually comes to Rs.36,000/- and from this amount if 1/4th is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, the loss of earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.27,000/-. As the deceased was aged 42 years at the time of his death, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘14’ and if the same is applied, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.27,000/- X 14). Apart from the said compensation, the 1st claimant-wife is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.3,98,000/-. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal in O.P.No.357 of 2001 dated 09.01.2006 is set aside. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,98,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Eight thousand only) to appellants-claimants 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 payable by respondents 2 and 3 herein with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claim against appellant-4th claimant is dismissed since he died during the pendency of appeal. Respondents 2 and 3 shall deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the said compensation amount, the 1st claimant is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,98,000/- shall be apportioned among claimants 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 equally. The share of the 5th claimant shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till she attains majority and the remaining claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares with accrued interest. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 02.09.2011 Gsn.