IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2627 of 2002 Between: Government of Orissa, rep.by the Collector, Korapur at PO/PS/Town, Munsif and District Koraput and another ..... APPELLANTS AND Meesala Sattamma and 5 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2627 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The appellants are the respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P.265/1990 filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of the deceased on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam. The Tribunal below by order dated 17.12.1994 awarded compensation of Rs.87,000/- alone along with interest at 12% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed. 6th respondent herein is the 3rd respondent in the said OP. 2. The parties hereafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal below. 3. It is the case of the claimants that the first claimant is the wife, claimants Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters, 4th claimant is the son, 5th claimant is the mother and 6th claimant is the father of the deceased Meesala Krishna. The claimants are agricultural labourers. The deceased Meesala Krishna is aged about 28 years by the time of his death. He used to work as a Mill Kalasi in Sri Vedhalakshmi Rice Mill, Rajam on piece work basis and used to earn Rs.30/- to Rs.40/- per day. Apart from that, he also used to do milk vending business and earning Rs.500/- per month and thus, the deceased used to earn Rs.1500/- to Rs.1700/- per month. The crime vehicle bearing No.ORK-5404 HGV belongs to the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent is the employer who employed 3rd respondent-driver. While so, on 06.07.1990 at about 7.30 a.m. while the deceased was going to Rajam from Kancharam on bicycle for delivering the milk to the customers at Rajam, the crime vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent, driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, thereby the deceased received fatal injuries to his right leg and head and succumbed to injuries. The Station House Officer, Rajam registered a case in Cr.No.83/1990 under Sec.338 and 304-A IPC under Ex.A1-FIR. Therefore, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. A counter was filed denying all the allegations about the manner and method of the accident and also about the income of the deceased. 5. The Tribunal below based on oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants recorded a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal below has taken into account the monthly income of the deceased @Rs.600/- and after deducting 1/3rd contribution to the family, the income of the deceased was taken as to Rs.400/- per month and applied multiplier 15 as the deceased was aged about 28 years and awarded compensation of Rs.72,800/- towards loss of dependency, and also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner and thus awarded total compensation of Rs.87,000/-. 6. It is stated that in so far as the contention of the appellant that there was no rash and negligent driving, there is no material whatsoever in support of his contention. It is stated that on the date of accident while the deceased was going on his bicycle to supply milk to his customers and proceeding on the left side of the road and when reached near Vastrapuri colony near Kancharam, the heavy vehicle bearing registration No.ORK-5404 driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner, in high speed, dashed and ran over the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained crush injury to his right leg and also sustained other severe injuries to the right side fore leg, and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. 7. The wife of the deceased as PW 1 stated that at the time of death of her husband, he was working in Vedalaxmi rice mill as cooly and used to earn Rs.30/- to Rs.40/- per day, apart from that, he used to earn Rs.30/- to Rs.40/- by supplying the milk of his four buffaloes and thus, he used to earn Rs.1500/- per month on the milk business as well as working as cooly in the rice mill. She denied the suggestion that he was only agricultural labour and that he was not working in the rice mill. 8. PW 2, who is resident of the same village and said to have been witnessed the accident, stated that the deceased used to work as a Kalasi in the rice mill and also used to sell milk. Nothing could be elicited from cross examination of PWs 1 and 2 to disbelieve their version. 9. PW 3 is co-worker of the deceased who is also working as Kalasi in the rice mill. He stated about employment and earnings of the deceased. 10. PW 4 stated that his mother is the proprietor of Vedalaxmi Rice Mill and he is the Manager of the Rice Mill. The deceased used to work in the rice mill as kalasi on daily wage basis and he used to pay Rs.50/- per day to the deceased. 11. RW 1, who was the driver of the crime vehicle, was alone examined on behalf of the respondent. He stated that the cause of death of the deceased was not because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, but because of negligence on the part of the deceased. The evidence of RW 1 was without any basis and contrary to the documentary and other oral evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 12. In so far as the income is concerned, I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly taken into account the income of the deceased as Rs.600/- only per month which is most reasonable. In fact, it appears that the amount taken by the Court below as income of the deceased is very meager, and out of which 1/3rd of amount towards contribution to the family was deducted and arrived at the income of Rs.400/- p.m. and awarded total compensation of Rs.87,000/- on all counts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said award of compensation is excessive on any account. However, as there is no any cross appeal filed by the claimants, it is not open to the claimants to contend that they are entitled much more compensation than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below. 13. In so far as the interest is concerned, the Court below granted interest at 12% p.a. which is excessive and exorbitant and more than the lending rate of interest, as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, I am inclined to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal below on the total compensation amount from 12% to 8% p.a. 14. The CMA is accordingly allowed in part to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 01.07.2010 Dsr