B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is the respondents appeal as against the award of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam in O. P. No. 160 of 1989 dated 19-3-1990 questioning the alleged excessive amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam. The claimants have filed the Cross-Objections, inter alia, contending that the amount of compensation so awarded is inadequate. The two aspects involving the common questions have been considered together for the purpose of convenience.

( 2 ) A claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act ) was laid by the claimants who are the wife and children of the deceased Venkateswar Rao, an advocate practising at Sathupalli to recover Rs. 4,00,000/- due to the death in the motor vehicle accident on 14-1-1989 said to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. AEZ 2956 by the driver, respondent No. l. Among the respondents, respondent No. l is the driver, respondent No. 2 is the Depot Manager and respondent No. 3 is the owner of the vehicle. The respondents/appellants resisted the claim by denying the plea of negligence inasmuch as the other material particulars including the income of the deceased and the loss of dependency etc. , etc. , and etc. After an enquiry into the controversies, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus of respondent no. l, the age of the deceased was 32 years at the relevant time, he was an advocate practising at Sathupalli in Khammam district earning Rs. 1750/- per mensem and adopted the multiplier of 17 and with the multiplicand based on such amount fixed the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,92,000/- and added rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No. l and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life totalling to Rs. 2,22,000/ -. Aggrieved by such findings in regard to negligence and the compensation, the respondents have come up with this appeal.

( 3 ) IN the Cross-Objections, it is contended that the Tribunal committed a serious error in scaling down the income of the deceased from Rs. 2500/- as against the evidence to Rs. 1750/-, thereby reducing the multiplicand and thus resulting in inadequacy of the compensation. In addition to this, Sri E. S. Ramachandra Murthy, learned advocate for the claimants, has contended that strictly speaking the claimants had set up the quantum of compensation at rs. 10,00,000/- and restricted the same to Rs. 4,00,000/- and even then, that is scaled down to 2,22,000, thereby making it unjust compensation as against section 110-B of the Act. Mr. Krishna, learned advocate for the respondents, who argued the matter along with Smt. Vyjayanthi has contended that such findings of the tribunal are open for assailment in view of the clear evidence in the case leading to wrong inferences and the wrong findings.

( 4 ) THIS Court with all anxiety has reassessed the whole materials on record and has found that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of negligence recorded by the tribunal as against the 1st respondent in causing the accident. The tribunal has given adequate and convincing reasons in support of such a finding. From the evidence, it is revealed that the bus dashed the scooter from behind and the explanation that while in the process of a voiding buffaloes the driver of the bus could not avoid the accident did not find favour with the tribunal. The conduct of the respondent No. l in not filing ?. I. R. with the police and not coming up with the explanation by means of a report to his official superiors was an added factor to suffer the finding of negligence against the 1st respondent. Subramanya Iyer s case had declared that the finding of the trial Court or the tribunal cannot be lightly interfered with in the appeal when adequate reasons are provided in the judgment and the award. This is one of such cases wherein the tribunal has given sufficient and cog

Click Here to Read the rest of this document