THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3848 OF 2002 DATED: 26-11-2009 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANT And Yakala Simhachalam & 4 others. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 01-07-2002, in O.P.No.76 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-Yakala Padma, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01-06-1999. Claimants are the parents of the deceased. According to resthem, the deceased who was aged 18 years, was attending to labour work of loading and unloading in the tractor trailor bearing Nos.AP 5L 4338 AP 5X 3031 and on that day she was going by the tractor from Kassayyapeta to Bobbili and when the tractor was proceeding along the left side of the road, a Maruthi car bearing No.WNW.2944 came on the wrong side in the opposite direction and dashed against the tractor trailor as a result of which the tractor trailor overturned and fell into a ditch resulting in the death of the deceased. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi car by its driver. 4. The driver and owner of the car remained ex parte. The insurer of the vehicle filed a counter opposing the claim and denying the liability to pay compensation and contending inter alia that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi car by its driver and rejected the plea of the appellant that there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of the vehicles. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,55,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi car by its driver alone. 8. In the claim application, it is stated that while the tractor trailor was proceeding from Kassayyapeta to Bobbili on the extreme left side of the road, the Maruthi car came in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the tractor trailor as a result of which the tractor trailor overturned. In the First Information Report-Ex.A1, which was registered immediately after the accident, it is stated that the tractor trailor was proceeding towards Bobbili and the Maruthi car came in the opposite direction from Bobbili side and dashed against the tractor, and the tractor was also found lying overturned in a ditch on the left side of the road. The same version is found in the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report-Ex.A3 and the charge sheet-Ex.A4, wherein it is stated that the driver of the Maruthi car alone was responsible for the accident. Thus, after due investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Maruthi car and prosecuted him for the offence of rash and negligent driving. That apart, P.W.2, one of the persons travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident, also testified that the tractor was proceeding on the left side of the road when the accident took place. No doubt, P.W.2 was not cited as a witness in the charge sheet- Ex.A4 but nevertheless his claim that he is also travelling in the same tractor at that time and therefore witnessed the accident is not discredited in any manner. 9. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, coupled with the criminal case record, would establish that the accident occurred while the tractor was proceeding along the left side of the road and the Maruthi car coming in the opposite direction dashed against the tractor trailor as a result of which the tractor trailor overturned and fell into a ditch on the right side. It is quite possible that in order to avoid collision the driver of the tractor has swerved towards further left but in vain and the tractor fell into the ditch immediately after collision as it also crossed the road and this circumstance suggests that the Maruthi car was not proceeding along its left side but it came on the wrong side. If the Maruthi car was proceeding on the correct side i.e. towards left side of the road, there was not even any occasion for it to collide with the tractor which was moving along its left side. The appellant has not chosen to examine the driver of the Maruthi car to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants. In the absence of the evidence of the driver of the car the evidence adduced by the claimant, showing that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi car by its driver, remains un-rebutted. 10. Under those circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the Maruthi car alone was responsible for the accident does not call for any interference as the same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. The plea of the appellant-insurer that there was a composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles remains unsubstantiated. 11. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the deceased was stated to be aged 18 years and was doing labour work as a coolie. Though the claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.80/- per day, there was no evidence adduced in that regard. Hence, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.a. and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family was taken as Rs.10,000/- p.a. and applying the multiplier of ‘15’ which is applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of dependency, and by awarding a sum of Rs.5000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- and the said amount is considered to be just and reasonable. 12. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th November, 2009 Tsy