The quantum of compensation payable to the dependents of a person killed in a motor vehicle accident is to be calculated by deducting 1/3rd of the deceased's salary for personal expenses and multiplying the remaining amount by a multiplier, considering the deceased's age, years of service left, and the contingency of premature death.

K. B. SIDDAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Insurance Appeal is filed against the decretal order passed in OP. No. 287 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Additional district Judge, Vizianagaram. The brief facts of the case are as follows: respondent No. 1 is the wife and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of one p. V, Satyanarayana and R-1. At the time of the accident P. V. Satyanarayana was working as Assistant Director in Animal Husbandry Department at vizianagaram. On the date of the accident i. e. , on 11-5-1987, he had gone to gantyada for inspection of the Live-stock Supervisory Unit. After the said inspection,he reached Budathanapallu Rural Live-Stock Unit and after the said visit he was coming back on his Scooter. When he reached Fly-over Bridge at vizianagaram the lorry bearing registration No. ABV-3447 driven by respondent No. 1, in the O. P. , came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter of the deceased. The deceased suffered severe head injuries and also injuries on the right leg and other parts of the body. After the accident he was shifted to Maharaja Government hospital, Vizianagaram and from there on medical advice he was taken to King george Hospital, Visakhapatnam. On 12-5-1987 at 4-15 A. M. , injured succumbed to the injuries. The death intimation was given to the Police. The petitioners in the O. P. , contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

( 2 ) THE deceased, at the time of the accident, as said earlier, was working as assistant Director. According to the respondents herein, the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 4,128-30 ps. per month. They claimed various amounts under Clause 25 of the Claim Petition. In all, they claimed an amount of rs. 7,15,000-00. In the lower Court the petitioners examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exhibits A-1 to A-16. The respondents examined R. Ws. l and 2 and marked Exhibits B-1 to B-3.

( 3 ) CONSIDERING both the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal below granted a sum of Rs. 4,44,430-00 with proportionate costs. It granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. It limited the liability of the 1st appellant i. e. , the Insurance Company to rs. 3,00,000. 00, as per the conditions of the original of Ex. B-3 (lnsurance Policy ). Out of the total compensation, it awarded Rs. 2,34,430-00 to Respondent No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 35,000-00 was granted to Respondent No. 2, an amount of Rs. 50,000-00 was granted to Respondent No. 3 and an amount of rs. 75,000-00 was apportioned to the fourth respondent. An amount of rs. 50,000-00 was given to the fifth respondent in the O. P. The amounts granted to the claimants were directed to be invested in the Bank.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present appeal is filed.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the driver of the lorry is not negligent. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooterist, himself. As a matter of fact, R. W. 2 who is the brother of Appellant No. 2, the owner of the lorry, was travelling on mat day in the lorry along with R. W. I, who is the driver. Both R. Ws. l and 2 categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of me scooterist himself. In view of this, no liability can be fastened to the respondents in the O. P. , for the said accident. We are unable to agree with this contention. In this case, there is direct evidence of P. W. I, who is the eye witness. He clearly stated that while he was coming on his rickshaw at the time of the accident, he saw the scooterist going up-gradient on the Fly-over and the lorry was coming down-gradient. It is categorically asserted that the lorry came to the right side of the road and dashed against the scooterist, who was going to his left-side. He clearly stated that the accident occu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document