IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH [30TH] DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.3579 of 2008 & M.A.C.M.A.No.3594 of 2008 MACMA No.3579 of 2008: Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., Secunderabad … Appellant And: Akula Chandraiah & others … Respondents MACMA No.3594 of 2008: Between: Akula Chandraiah & others … Appellants And: G. Srinivas Reddy & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.3579 of 2008 & M.A.C.M.A.No.3594 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals arise out of the order dated 28.04.2008 in OP No.384 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the claim for compensation by the claimants, who are respondents 1 to 3 in CMA No.3579 of 2008 and the appellants in CMA No.3594 of 2008, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,70,300/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of one Akula Lakshmi in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.05.2007. The first claimant is the husband, second claimant is the daughter and 3rd claimant is the son of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased was going from Karimnagar to Sulthanpur in an auto bearing No.AP 15 W 5826 and at about 4 p.m. when the auto reached Durshed village, one Eitcher van bearing No.AP 28 U 1629 came from Peddapalli side in the opposite direction and dashed against the auto, as a result of which, the deceased received serious injuries, including head injury and died. Karimnagar Rural Police registered a case in Cr.No.144 of 2007 against the driver of Eitcher van under Section 304-A IPC. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 35 years and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month by selling toddy. 4. The owner of Eitcher van filed counter, admitting the accident and denying the liability. The insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Eitcher van bearing No.AP 28 U 1629 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 & B.2 were marked on behalf of the insurer. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Eitcher van by its driver. On issue No.2 the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,70,300/- and accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer preferred MACMA No.3579 of 2008. Questioning the award, the claimants preferred MACMA No.3594 of 2008 seeking enhancement of the compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would contend that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability between the two. He would further contend that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner, which are not contemplated under the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand would submit that the evidence on record established that it was only the driver o f Eitcher van that is responsible for the accident and there was no evidence to show that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers. He would further contend that the Tribunal has awarded lesser amount towards loss of consortium and towards love and affection. 10. Learned counsel for the insurer placed reliance on Ex.B.2 certified copy of crime details form, which was marked through the evidence of RW.1, an Officer of the Insurance Company. Ex.B.2 contains among other things, rough sketch of the scene of accident. The said sketch merely shows that one vehicle is parked on one side of the road and the other vehicle is parked on the other side of the road. It does not in any manner indicate let alone establish that it is a case of head on collision in the middle of the road. The insurer has not examined any witness to establish their contention that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto also. On the other hand, Ex.A.1 certified copy of FIR, Ex.A.2 certified copy of charge sheet and Ex.A.3 certified copy of inquest would show that it was the driver of the Eitcher van, who was responsible for the accident. In the absence of any evidence to show that the driver of the auto also was negligent and that he too contributed to the accident, the plea of the appellant-insurer that the liability ought to have been apportioned between the two vehicles remains unsubstantiated. In view of the evidence available on record, particularly, Ex.B.2 certified copy of crime details form supporting the claim of the claimants that it was the driver of the Eitcher van, who was responsible for the accident, the finding of the Tribunal fastening the entire liability on the driver of the van, does not call for any interference. 11. According to the claimants, the deceased was selling toddy and earning Rs.3,300/- per month, besides, being a house wife. The Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.1,200/- per month as contribution of the deceased to the family, which amount is considered to be just and reasonable. The Tribunal has applied multiplier ‘17’, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased, who was aged 35 years and awarded a sum of Rs.2,44,800/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, as the claimants 2 and 3 are young in age. The said amount awarded cannot be said to be unreasonable. Though the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribed a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. However, it is considered neither just nor expedient to alter the same. The amount of Rs.2,500/- awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses are in accordance with the II Schedule of the Act. The amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded towards transport charges also does not call for any interference. 12. Under those circumstances, it is held that the total amount of Rs.2,70,300/- awarded by the Tribunal represents just and fair compensation and the award passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, does not call for any interference. There are no merits in both the appeals. 13. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 30.06.2010 bss