B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the award of the Motor Vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal, Guntur, in M. V. O. P. No. 319 of 1989 dated 9-8-90. CMA no. 113 of 1991 is filed by the claimants, whereas CMA No. 80 of 1991 is filed by respondent No. 2 Insurer, in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The claimants being wife and children of the deceased Yesurathnam, filed claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the act ), for recovery of compensation of Rs. 87,500/- from respondent No. 1 owner of tractor-cum-trailer and respondent No. 2 Insurer of the vehicle alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver, which resulted in the fatal injuries to the deceased. The accident occurred on 5-5-1988, whereas the deceased died on 10-5-88. The respondent No. 1 owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte, whereas the respondent No. 2 contested the claim. The Tribunal having held an enquiry into the controversies, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, that it was insured with respondent No. 2 at the relevant time, that the claimants are entitled to recover Rs. 30,000/- by way of compensation, and that the respondents are liable to pay the sum to the claimants. The claimant nos. 1 and 2 died during the pendency of their appeal, and now only claimant no. 3 daughter of the deceased alone is prosecuting the appeal.

( 2 ) IT is the grievance of the claimants- that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. According to them, the deceased being an agricultural labourer, was getting Rs. 30/- per diem and was able to contribute it to the family, including himself. But the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs. 450/- per mensem and deducting Rs. 100/-towards personal expenses took Rs. 350/- towards contribution to the family. The Tribunal by taking 4. 27 as the multiplier was not justified having due regard to the age of the deceased at 55 years. It is contended on behalf of the appellants by the learned advocate mr. N. Subba Rao, that in this case even taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- per diem, the multiplicand ought to have been more, and the multiplier should be atleast 10, and that the Tribunal has failed to add reasonable sum towards loss of expectation of life of the deceased and also the incidental expenses for funeral etc. , and therefore, the amount of compensation so awarded requires to be enhanced to make it just compensation. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. N. S. Bhaskara rao contented that when the evidence on record was within the limits of conjectures and surmises, the Tribunal was justified in taking such amount and multiplier into consideration, and the amount so awarded was just and reasonable and requires no interference by this Court in the appeal.

( 3 ) MR. K. SUBBA Rao, the learned advocate for the Insurer contended that although there is clear stipulation in the Insurance Policy, Ex. B-1, that the vehicle was insured to cover the risk only when the vehicle was used for agricultural purposes, and in spite of clear evidence that the deceased was not an employee of the owner of the vehicle and contradicted from the clear allegations made in the claim petition in column No. 5 and also in the body of the petition, the Tribunal without considering the question of liability as it could have been done, fastened the liability on the Insurer. The learned counsel for the claimants and respondent No. 1 contended that there is no specific plea in the written statement filed by the Insurer about the particular ground on which liability is absolved, and secondly that the evidence bears out the relationship of the deceased and -the owner of the vehicle as master and servant, and the accident having been occurred in the course of the employment, the Insurer cannot avoid the liability by virtue o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document