proper multiplier applicable is 15 - As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC[1], the proper multiplier to be applied for a person aged 40 years is 15. Thus, the total loss of earnings comes to Rs.6,000/- X 15 =Rs.90,000/-. The 1st claimant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

Civil Revision Petition No.2545 of 2012

 

Date:04th October, 2012

 

Between:

Gavara Suryavathi W/o.late Ramakrishna & Ors.
                ... Petitioners
a n d
Guntakala Brahma Reddy S/o.Punna Reddy & Ors.
… Respondents

***




THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

Civil Revision Petition No.2545 of 2012


ORDER:

Dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted in O.P.No.319 of 1991 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the claimants have filed this Civil Revision Petition.

2.     Facts in brief are: The petitioners are the claimants in O.P.No.319 of 1991.  Claimant No.1 is the wife; Claimant Nos.2 to 5 are children and Claimant No.6 is the mother of Gavara Ramakrisha.  He was travelling in a mini lorry bearing No.ACI 3141 along with coconut load on 19.12.1990.  At about 7.00 P.M., on reaching Kondalamma temple near Kurellagudem, a lorry bearing No.AAK 3895 dashed the mini lorry bearing No.ACI 3141 from behind.  As a result, he fell down and met with instantaneous death.  He was doing coconut business, earning Rs.1,500/- p.m. He was contributing his earnings to the maintenance of his family comprising his wife, children and mother.  He was aged about 40 years as on the date of his death.   The claimants filed OP No.319 of 1991 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the owners, drivers and insurers of both the vehicles involved in the accident.  The 3rd respondent-insurer of the lorry bearing No.AAK 3895 filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants.  The respondents 1 and 2-driver and owner of the lorry bearing No.AAK 3895 remained ex parte.  The 6th respondent-insurer of the mini lorry bearing No.AIC 3141 filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants.  The respondents 4 and 5-driver and owner of the said mini lorry adopted the counter of the 6th respondent-insurer.

3.     The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
1)     Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AAK 3895 by its driver-1st respondent?
2)     Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
3)     To what relief?

On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and three documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A3.  On behalf of the 6threspondent-insurer of mini lorry bearing No.AIC 3141, one witness was examined as RW.1 and one document was marked as Ex.B1.  The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AAK 3895 and thereby proceeded to grant Rs.92,000/- towards compensation to the claimants, by an order, dated 16.01.1995.  The Tribunal dismissed the O.P. against the respondents 4 to 6.  Dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed this revision.

3.     Though the 3rd respondent-insurer entered appearance through a counsel, none appears on their behalf when the revision came up for consideration.

4.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/claimants and perused the material brought on record.

5.     The only contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/claimants is that the Tribunal has not taken the proper multiplier for arriving the loss of contribution to the claimants.  According to the learned counsel, the proper multiplier applicable is 15, whereas the Tribunal has taken the multiplier No.12.  As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC[1], the proper multiplier to be applied for a person aged 40 years is 15.  Thus, the total loss of earnings comes to Rs.6,000/- X 15 =Rs.90,000/-.  The 1st claimant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium.  The amount claimed by the petitioners/claimants is Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.92,000/-.  In that view of the matter, I am inclined to enhance the compensation allowed to the petitioners/claimants from Rs.92,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 

6.     Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed enhancing the compensation allowed to the petitioners/claimants from Rs.92,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.  The enhanced compensation amount of Rs.8,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.  No costs.

_________________________

B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:04th October, 2012.

cs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civil Revision Petition No.2545 of 2012



Date:04th October, 2012




[1] (2009) 6 SCC 121

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515