GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THE United India insurance Company Limited preferred this appeal against the order dated 19-4-2001 in op No. 1611 of 1997 on the file of Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad, granting compensation of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 on account of the death of P. Narayana reddy.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 27-8-1977 P. Narayana Reddy was going on foot to the house of one P. Venkat Reddy and when he reached Dindi Cross Roads near Check post, one Scooter bearing no. A. P. 24c-9625 was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident. The deceased having sustained fracture on the head in the said accident, was admitted in the Government Hospital, Devarkonda, and he died later. The wife and children of the deceased filed the above OP claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. 00 from the owners and insurer of the scooter involved in the accident.

( 3 ) THE first respondent-owner has not filed counter, but the second respondent filed counter denying the accident, relationship, income and age of the deceased. Further, the scooterist was not having valid driving licence.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal framed issues as to whether P. Narayana Reddy died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No. AP 24c-9625; whether the scooter was insured with the appellant - insurer and whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation.

( 5 ) ON behalf of claimants, PWs. l and 2 were examined and Exs. Al to A7 were marked while none was examined for the respondents but Ex. Bl copy of the insurance policy was marked. The tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants claimants submits that the Tribunal ought to have applied the appropriate multiplier 18 in the facts and circumstances of the case and drawn my attention to the judgment of the apex Court in Supe Devi v. National insurance Company Limited, 2002 ACJ 1166, wherein it was held as follows:"while considering the question of just compensation payable in a case all relevant factors including the appropriate multiplier are to be kept in mind. The position is well settled that the Second Schedule under section 163-A of the Act which gives the amount of compensation to be determined for the purpose of claim under the Section can be taken as a guideline, while determining the compensation under Section 166 of the act. In that view of the matter, there is no reason why multiplier of 17 should not be taken as the appropriate multiplier in this case. "

( 7 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the wages under the Minimum Wages Act and granted the compensation and further, the quantum of compensation is on the higher side.

( 8 ) IT is seen from the evidence on record that PW-1 is the wife of the deceased and PW2 is an eye-witness to the accident. PW-2 deposed that he was standing near Dindi cross-road and witnessed the occurrence of the accident and when the deceased and his son were proceeding towards Kalvakurthy on the left side of the road, the scooterist came with high speed and dashed against the deceased due to which he sustained fracture on the head and he was taken to the Government hospital and later, he died in the hospital. Further, the scooterist was not examined and hence, the evidence of PW2 remained unchallenged. Relying upon the evidence of pw2 coupled with the evidence of Exs. A-1 to A7, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the scooterist. In view of the evidence of pw2 coupled with the evidence of Exs. A-1 to A7, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist. The evidence of record clearly points to the conclusion that the scooter was driven in a rash and negligent manner.

( 9 ) AS regards determination of just compens

Click Here to Read the rest of this document