THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.2634 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle against the Award in M.V.O.P.No.185 of 1998, dated 08-08-2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy challenging the order which attached liability on him in respect of the compensation paid in favour of the respondents herein (claimants). The case of the claimants is that on 27-02-1997 one, Venkaiah (deceased) was proceeding on his bicycle from Medak at Peroor Village. The offending vehicle, which is tractor-trailer combination bearing registration No.APB 625 and 626, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the bicycle, as a result of which, the deceased received multiple injuries and died on the spot. The first claimant being the wife and the second claimant being the daughter of the deceased, filed O.P. claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant/respondent filed the counter and contested the claim on the ground that the accident took place on account of the break down of the vehicle with some mechanical problem and in fact no accident took place as alleged and claimed by the claimants. Based on the pleading, the Tribunal formulated issues, whether the accident was true and whether it occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the claimants are his legal heirs and to what amount they are entitled for compensation. The claimant No.2 examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined Village Administrative Officer as P.W.2 and one Talari Shyam Rao, who was traveling along with the deceased in the vehicle and an eyewitness as P.W.3. Exs.A1, certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.A2, certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3, certified copy of Inquest Report, Ex.A4, certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report and Ex.A5, certified copy of M.V.I. Report were marked on behalf of claimants. The appellant, owner of the vehicle, got examined himself as R.W.1 and marked portion of depositions of P.W.3 in C.C.No.194 of 1997 as Ex.B1 and copy of the judgment in C.C.No.194 of 1997 as Ex.B2. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. While holding that the claimants were the legal heirs of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.89,600/- with 9% interest. This appeal is filed against the said Award. Heard Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.Prathap Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterates that the accident was not on account of any rash and negligent driving of the vehicle on the part of the driver. He would contend that the driver was acquitted in the criminal case and relies upon Ex.B2 Judgment of the Criminal Court. He would further contend that in fact he is not the owner of the offending vehicle and as such not liable to pay the compensation. Sri V.Prathap Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/claimants, refuted the said contentions and would submit that the Award was rightly passed and not liable to be interfered with. It may be noted that immediately after the incident, P.W.2, Village Administrative Officer of Peroor Village went to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased breathing for life and therefore, he took him to the Government Hospital, Medak and while taking treatment he died. P.W.3 was going in a tractor as a cooli and he observed that the deceased was going on a cycle on the left side of the road. The tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner. He, however, stated that he could not say the registration number of the tractor. The witness was cross-examined by the claimants as he showed the tendencies as hostile witness. It was suggested to him that he was under the influence of the owner that he was deposing due to the fear from the owner as he was having work under him. He denied the suggestion that he witnessed the accident and given false evidence with an intention to help the owner. In the cross-examination by the owner, he, however, admitted that the accident took place at 6.30 PM after sunset. He also admitted that he was examined before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak, in respect of this accident in which also he stated that he was not aware of anything about the accident. He further admitted that he was not examined by the Police, but his evidence was recorded as contained in Ex.B1. He said that he could not see at whose fault the accident took place. The owner as P.W.3 admitted in his cross-examination that Mohd.Khaza is the native of his village and that he is A1 in the case under Ex.B1. He also admitted that P.W.2 also belonged to the same village. He, however, denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence. On a complaint given by V.A.O., F.I.R. No.32/97, dated 28-02-1997 registered in respect of the accident. On the basis of the complaint, the Police conducted investigation and as per the investigation, the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No. APB 625 and 626, which was earlier purchased by one, Sri Sridhar Reddy of Kunchanapally, was sold on 21-12-1974 to C.Narender Reddy (appellant) of Ryalamadugu. It was also found that the appellant paid tax in respect of the vehicle up to 30-06-1996 and defaulted thereafter and not even insured the vehicle. The investigation also revealed that the appellant engaged Mohd.Khaza as his driver and the vehicle was driven by him at the time of accident. Although P.W.2 turned hostile in the instant case and also in the criminal case in C.C.No.194 of 1997, it is apparent from the investigation and the surrounding circumstances that the aforesaid vehicle was very much involved in the accident and the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. In fact the appellant did not even examine the driver to refute the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It is therefore evident that the appellant himself is the owner of the vehicle and the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard therefore cannot be said to be incorrect. The Tribunal calculated the pecuniary loss taking the income of the deceased at Rs.900/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency was taken at Rs.7,200/- and applying the ‘8’ multiplier, awarded Rs.57,600/- towards dependency and further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, in total Rs.89,600/-. The income at Rs.900/- on the basis of which the pecuniary loss was estimated cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive and the compensation arrived thereupon therefore represents just and reasonable compensation. On consideration of the entire material on record, it has to be held that the appeal is without any merits. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 22nd July, 2010 Skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.2634 of 2002 Date : 22-07-2010 Between : C.Narender Reddy .. Appellant And Thippapuram Begamma and another .. Respondents