S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of common judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated November 27, 1984 in O. P. Nos. 1. 32 and 153 of 1984. In C. M. A. No. 1508/85 the claimant/petitioners, in the O. P. No. 132/84, are the appellants whereas in C. M. A. No. 266/85, the Insurance company, the 2nd respondent in the said O. P, is the appellant.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to these appeals are. On the early morning of june 1, 1984 one Gajendraiah loaded mangoes at Guntur in lorry A. D. M. 5994 for transporting them to Nellore and accompanied it sitting in cabin along with his brother. While the lorry was going along the G. N. T. Road, from Guntur towards Nellore, in the course of overtaking a truck to which a trolly was attached and which was proceeding ahead of the lorry in the same direction, the said lorry dashed against the backside of the trolly which resulted in serious injuries to the said Gajendraiah and to his brother, gajendraiah succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. The wife, children and parents of the said Gajendraiah (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) filed O. P. No. 132/84. They claimed compensation of Rs. 75,000/- under various heads. According to them, the deceased was earning Rs. 1000/- per month and was maintaining them.

( 3 ) THE owner of the lorry denied that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry ADM 5994. It is stated that the lorry which was having trolly attached to it suddenly turned towards left side as a result of which the trolly turned towards southeast direction on account of which lorry ADM 5994 came into contact with the northwestern corner of the trolly and that the deceased who was projecting his head outside the cabin received injuries and died. It was denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 1000/- per month as alleged in the petition.

( 4 ) THE 2nd tespondent-Insurance company filed its counter denying the allegation that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry ADM 5994, It is stated that the insurance policy issued for the said lorry covers only one person who may accompany the goods loaded in the lorry and the extent of the liability is limited to rs. 10,000/ -. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim compensation as prayed for, and that the amount claimed is excessive.

( 5 ) PETITIONERS examined P. Ws. 1 to 4 including the widow of the deceased as P. W. 1 and the brother of the deceased who was travelling along with the lorry as P. W. 2. Exs. A. 1 to A. 5 were marked by them.

( 6 ) NO oral evidence was let in for the respondents but the insurance policy was marked as Ex. B. 1.

( 7 ) ON appraisal of the evidence on record, the Tribunal determined the annual dependency value at Rs. 2000/- and taking the multiplier as 13, awarded compensation of Rs. 26,000/-, a further sum of Rs. 4000/- to the widow (the 1st petitioner) for loss of consortium, interest at 6% p. a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and costs. The tribunal held that the liability of the 2nd respondent-insurance company cannot be limited to Rs. 10,000/- as pleaded by it. Accordingly, the award was pa ssed against both the owner as well as the insurance company.

( 8 ) SRI Mangachari, the learned counsel for the insurance company in CM. A. No. 266/85 submits that the policy authorised travelling of only one passenger and as two passengers were travelling along with the goods, the insurance company is not liable. In the alternative it is contended that as the policy limits the liability to Rs. 10,000/-, no award can be passed against the insurance company over and above the said amount.

( 9 ) SRI Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant in C. M. A. No 1508/85 submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is very meagre. It is submitted that. wrong multiplier has been applied and that the compensation under difierent beads, has no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document