( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 2 ) NOT being satisfied with the compensation awarded by III Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in o. P. No. 647/1993 dated 26-7-1999, the claimants preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 23-4-1993 at about 9. 20 a. m. , the deceased Venugopal was proceeding on his scooter bearing No. ABL 4382 to his work place at BDL, Kanchanbagh, hyderabad and on reaching Dhobighat at saidabad, one MCH lorry bearing No. ADT 5008 came from behind and hit the scooter and as a result, Venugopal died on the spot. The pillion rider T. V. Satyanarayana murthy also sustained injuries. It was alleged that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The deceased was working as junior Technician, drawing Rs. 3,300/- per month in B. D. L. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the deceased and as she was residing separately, the claimants who are the parents and brother of the deceased, alleged that she is not entitled for compensation. With these averments, they claimed an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act ).

( 4 ) THE 1st respondent who is the owner, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent who is wife of the deceased, denied that there is any severance of marital status and stated that she filed O. P. No. 728/1994 before the same Court for compensation and sought for clubbing of both the cases.

( 5 ) THE 3rd respondent insurer filed counter and denied the averments of the claimants. It was stated that as the wife filed O. P. No. 728/1994 for compensation, the present petition is not maintainable. In the additional counter-affidavit filed, it was also alleged that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and as the matter of accident was not reported to the insurance Company with the collusion of the claimants, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and accordingly the claim petition was sought to be dismissed.

( 6 ) BASED on the above pleadings, the court below framed the following issues : 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 23-4-1993 at about 9. 20 a. m. due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry (MCH) bearing No. ADT 5008, by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for the death of their son in the motor accident? if so, to what amount ? 3. To what relief ?

( 7 ) IN support of the case of claimants, the father and mother of the deceased examined themselves as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and an eye-witness was examined as P. W. 3. Exs. A-1 to A-8 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent, who is the wife of the deceased was examined as R. W. 1 and xerox copy or policy was marked as Ex. B-1. On behalf of the insurer or the insured, no one was examined.

( 8 ) BASED on evidence, the Court below held that as there was no decree of divorce and marriage is subsisting, the 2nd respondent is not disqualified to claim any share in the estate of deceased under the hindu Succession Act. The Court below further held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing No. ADT 5008. With regard to assessment of compensation, the Court below took the salary certificate of the deceased Ex. A-4 wherein the salary was shown as Rs. 4,536/ -. Taking his future prospects, the Tribunal below assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, arrived at Rs. 40,000/- per annum as the contribution of the deceased to his family. As the deceased was aged 31 years as per Ex. A-2 post-mortem certificate, the Tribunal took the age of the mother, who is 51 years, and as the accident occurred prior to amendment Act 54 of 1994, considering the multiplier laid down in Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif, ACJ 1987 1052, applied the multiplier of 7. 06 and granted Rs. 2,82,400/- towards the income of the deceased and also granted rs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document