B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE claimants in O. P. No. 147/89 before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Ranga Reddy District have questioned the award of the Tribunal dated 19-3-1990 wherein the Tribunal while conceding the claim in favour of the claimants to the extent of 50% of Rs. 1,30,800/- (Rs. 65,400/-) held that the accident was due to the negligence of the drivers of the two lorries adq 7155 and ATR 600 and not mainly due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry ADQ 7155. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry adq 7155 and the 2nd respondent is its insurer. The claim was lodged under sec. 110-A of the M. V. Act, 1939 (for short the Act) for recovery of rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation.

( 2 ) THE claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimants 2 to 6 are the children and claimant No. 7 is the mother of the deceased Sathaiah, who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4-12-1988 while he was travelling in the lorry atr 600 due to the alleged negligence of the driver of the lorry ADQ 7155. During the enquiry, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the drivers of both the lorries. Having found that the age of the deceased was 35 years when he died and contribution to the family was rs. 600/- per month, with the multiplier of 14 and multiplicand of rs. 7,200/- arrived at Rs. 1,08,000/- towards loss of contribution to the family, added Rs. 20,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No. l and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral and incidental expenses and in view of the composite negligence of both the drivers apportioned it 50% each to them and consequently reduced the compensation to 50% i. e. , Rs. 65,400/ -.

( 3 ) MR. V. V. Ramanatham, the learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants has raised three broad contentions, (1) when the finding of the Tribunal is that the accident was due to the composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, the claimants were entitled to proceed against one or both the drivers, owners and the insurers of the vehicles and there could have been no scope for apportioning the negligence between the drivers; (2) the amount of compensation awarded is not adequate having due regard to the evidence before the Tribunal, and (3) even assuming that the negligence could have been apportioned between the two drivers, the Tribunal was bound to pass an award against the driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle whereby the claimants would have exhausted the remedy in accordance with Sec. 96 (2) of the Act before or during the execution proceedings.

( 4 ) MR. Anand Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/ insurer tried to repel all the above contentions and in particular regarding the last contention, it is his submission that in view of the deceased himself being the owner of the other lorry and his own driver having caused the accident, no such relief is available against the other insurer and even assuming that such a remedy may be available as against the other insurance company, there is no need to interfere with the award in so far as apportioning the negligence as against the driver of the lorry involved in the accident is concerned and further limiting the liability of the insurer to 50% of the total compensation is justified and since the insurer of the other lorry is not known neither the Tribunal nor this Court can pass an award in abstantee which in effect becomes a paper award without capable of being execution or enforcement.

( 5 ) HAVING due regard to the inter-related concept of the contentions supra, the question as to the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal could be the first question for determination. The finding that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the relevant time needs no probe as the Tribunal has rightly accepted it with the evidence on record. It is in the testimony of claimant No. 1 that the deceased was a contractor earning Rs. 1,800/- per day whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document