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:04^th 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 3^rd 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 6^th 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 6^th 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-1^st 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 6^threspondent-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 3^rd 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 1^st 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:04^th October, 2012.

cs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civil Revision Petition No.2545 of 2012

Date:04^th October, 2012

---

[1] (2009) 6 SCC 121