D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Insurance Company which is R-3 in the o. P. against the judgment and decree d/ 29-6-85 in O. P. No. 23/85 on the file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Vizianagaram-cum-Addl. District judge, Vizianagaram. Dealing with a petition under Section 110-A of the motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the widow and three minor children of the deceased G. Krishna, a private Homeo practitioner, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,17,500/- with interest at 6% per annum. A joint and several decree was passed against respondents 1 to 3, the driver, the owner of the bus A. P. S. 1654 and the insurance Company. The claimants filed cross object ions for the amount of the claim disallowed.

( 2 ) THE cardinal facts which gave rise to this O. P. and the appeal are as follows : The deceased Dr. G. Krishna was going on his motor cycle along with his wife and child ; a bus A. P. S. No. 1654 belonging to ths 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent came and dashed against ths motor cycle at 10-30 A. M. on 19-8-84. At the time of the accident petitioner no. 1 and the child petitioner No. 4 were sitting on the pillion of the motor cycle. The tribunal accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 who were travelling in the bus and the evidence of P. W. 1, the 1st petitioner and came to the conclusion that the accident is the direct result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by R-1. Though it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- P. M. and though P. W. 1 gave evidence to the effect that her husband was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as Homeo practitionar with dispensaries at two places, the court came to the conclusion that the net loss of support to the petitioners is Rs. 750/- P. M. out of a monthly income of Rs. 1500/-P. M and hence the loss of annual support is Rs. 9,000/ -. On that basis it arrived at a total loss of dependency at Rs. 2,70,000/- and after deducting 25% for the advantages of lumpsum payment and possibility of premature death due to natural causes it fixed the amount as Rs 2,02,500 then it granted Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/ for mental agony and suffering and thus fixed the total compensation payable at Rs. 2,17,500/ -.

( 3 ) IN this appeal the Insurance Company contends that the tribunal should have restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs. 50,000/- as per the provisions of Sec. 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as the act) and the tribunal committed a mistake in passing a joint and several liability decree against all the respondents for rs. 2,17,500/ -. Some grounds have also been taken to indicate that the tribunal has granted highly exaggerated claims and that the tribunal should not have fixed the income per month at Rs. 1500/ -. Similarly granting Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 5. 000/- for mental agony and suffering to the 1st petitioner is highly excessive.

( 4 ) IN the cross-objections the petitioners claims that the tribunal is not correct in fixing the monthly income at Rs 1500/- when in fact the deceased was a very popular Doctor earning Rs. 4000/- P. M. with dispensaries at two different places with good establishment. It is claimed that the entire amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- claimed in the O. P. should have been awarded.

( 5 ) IN this appeal the Insurance Company filed C. M. P. No. 7710/89 on 13-6-89 when the appeal came up for hearing. In this petition it is claimed that the insurance policy copy is now produced and the policy clearly establishes that the extent of liability of the Insurance Company is only Rs. 50,000/ -. The policy is now produced as additional evidence. The policy could not be filed earlier before the tribunal as it could not be traced in time. Recently the policy was traced. Hence it should be received as additional evidence. This additional evidence is essential for proper decision of this appeal. The petition is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document