IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.264 of 2007 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Branch Manager, Warangal. … Appellant And Biry Lalitha & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K. Sitaram Counsel for respondents 1-4: Sri A. Ravinder This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.264 of 2007 ORDER:- This appeal arises out of award dated 05.09.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.655 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short, “the Tribunal”). The insurance company, respondent No.2 in the original petition, is the appellant. The O.P. was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 for award of compensation for the death of one B. Mohan Reddy. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children and 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was a farm servant of one Keshava Reddy. When he was proceeding to the fields of his master at about 1.00 a.m. on 04.01.2003, he was hit by a speeding jeep allegedly belonging to respondent No.6 and insured with the appellant. PW.2 was stated to be the eye witness to the accident. On the basis of the complaint given by him, crime No.4 of 2003 was registered in PS Duggondi. The Tribunal has framed four issues. Issue No.1 related to whether the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver or due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, issue No.2 pertained to the age and income of the deceased and issue No.3 was whether the claimants were entitled to any compensation and if so, to what extent. The Tribunal found on issue No.1 that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep in question, on issue No.2, it has determined the age of the deceased as 40 years and income at Rs.2,000/- per month and on issue No.3, it held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,57,000/- under various heads along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. At the hearing, Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, submitted that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is not sustainable and that the income of the deceased was not properly assessed and thereby the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation. Per contra, Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel for claimant Nos.1 to 5, submitted that the findings of the Tribunal are based on proper evidence and, therefore, the award is not liable to be interfered with. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, PW.Nos.2 and 3 were examined to establish that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. PW.2, one Kolipaka Bhaskar, an Auto driver, deposed that in the early hours of 04.01.2003, he came to the road side to attend nature calls and observed jeep bearing No.AP 36 T 5031 driven by its driver, without headlights, hitting the deceased in the process of overtaking another jeep coming in opposite direction and fled away and that one Vaddula Sammi Reddy (PW.3) got down from another jeep at that time and both of them tried to save the deceased, but the deceased died on the spot. He claimed that he was the eye witness to the accident and has informed about the accident to the claimants and that the police examined him and recorded his statement. In the cross-examination, except putting a suggestion to the witness that he has not mentioned the number of the vehicle at the time of inquest and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., nothing material was elicited from him. To the suggestion made on behalf of the appellant, the witness denied that he was not a witness to the accident. The appellant has not filed copies of the inquest report and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. By adducing the evidence of PW.2, who is stated to be the eye witness, the claimants have discharged the initial burden placed on them. However, by not filing the documents, such as inquest report and 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant failed to discharge the onus shifted to them. Therefore, in my opinion, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep in question is based on evidence and the same does not suffer from any error. Coming to the contention relating to the assessment of compensation, the deceased’s age was assessed at 40 years going by the age of his eldest son, who was 21 years of age at the time of accident. As the deceased was a farm labourer, it is not unreasonable to assess his age as 40 years. With respect to the income, the Tribunal has taken Rs.2,000/- per month as the probable income the deceased would have been earning at the time of his death. I do not find anything abnormal in the approach of the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 15 to arrive at the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and arrived at the total amount of Rs.2,57,000/-. Having carefully considered the award of the Tribunal, I do not find any error in the same and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, MACMAMP.No.2562 of 2007 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.02.2010 ES