Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 768
Andhra Pradesh High Court
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
The National Insurance Company Limited, Khammam. – Appellant
vs.
P.Saraswathamma and Others. – Respondent
C.M.A.No. 1243 OF 2004
Decided on: 07-08- 2007
Advocate Appeared
Counsel for the Appellant :SRI N.S.Bhaskara Rao
Counsel for theRespondent NO.1: R.Kameshwara Rao
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act 1988- Sections 147, 146, 166 and 173- Death of workman in course of employment - Compensation - Section 147 sets out the requirement of policies and limits of liability of insurer. Policy issued by appellant-Insurance Company shows that risk of employees not exceeding six in number coming under purview of Workmens Compensation Act, covered-Insurer is liable to pay compensation, only to the extent of compensation payable under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. [Paras 16,17]
(B) Motor Vehicles Act 1988-Sections 140, 141(3), 166 and 173- No fault liability/fault liability- Amount of compensation paid under Section 140 has to be excluded from final award made under Section 166 . [Para 19-20]
1994 (2) ALT 653 -Relied.
(C) Motor Vehicles Act 1988- Sections 166 and 168- Death of workman- Compensation awarded should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient/inadequate-Amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case- There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring value of human life, and measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor it should be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is awarded. [Para 19]
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166 - Fatal Accident-While computing compensation the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand loss to claimants of future pecuniary benefits and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of death. Courts should not allow misfortune to be turned into a wind fall. [Para 21]
(2003) 7 SCC 484 - Relied.
(E) Workmens Compensation Act, 1923-Section 4- Death of workman in accident. Limits of liability of insurer. Liability of appellant/insurance Company is to be restricted to that arising under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. Owner and driver are liable to satisfy remaining portion of Award jointly and severally. [Para 25]
2. Respondent No.1 is widow, respondent No. 2 is daughter and respondent No.6 is mother of Appala Swamy. The said Appala Swamy and some others were engaged by P.Easwar Rao- 5th respondent herein, owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-180, for loading and unloading of cement poles. On 27-11-1998 Appala Swamy and co-labourers loaded cement poles on the lorry bearing No.AP16-T-180 and sat on the load. The lorry driven by one B.Srinu-4th respondent herein was proceeding from Paloncha to Bhadrachalam and on nearing NTR Colony, Bhadrachalam and while negotiating a curve, the driver lost control over the vehicle on account of his rash and negligent driving and as a result the lorry turned turtle and Appala Swamy and other co-labourers came under cement poles. Appala Swamy (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) suffered serious injuries for which he succumbed at the spot of the accident. The Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam (Rural) Police, registered a case in Crime No. 57 of 1998 under Section 304-A and 337 I.P.C against the driver of the lorry. Due to sudden death of the deceased, his dependents viz., his wife, daughter and mother were deprived of his earnings. Hence, the wife and the daughter filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Since the mother of the deceased did not join them, she was shown in the array of respondents in the claim petition. More precisely R-1 was driver, R-2 was the owner and R-3 was the insurer of the Crime Vehicle and whereas R-4 was the mother of the deceased in O.P.No.47 of 1999. The driver and the owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte. The insurer of the vehicle and the mother of the deceased filed counters.
3. Insurance Company disputed the income of the deceased and also rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. It also disputed the driver holding valid driving license, and lorry holding road permits and its roadworthiness as on the date of the accident.
4. Mother of the deceased filed counter contending that she is dependant on the earnings of deceased and she is aged about 80 years and thus sought for allotment of a share in the compensation.
5. The Tribunal settled the following issues:- 1. Whether the deceased Pantala Appala Swamy died due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. A.P. 16-T 180 by its driver/ R-1? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief ?
6. On behalf of the claimants, claimant NO.1 i.e. widow of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and five documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the mother of the deceased, neither ocular nor documentary evidence was adduced. The insurance company marked copy of the policy as Ex.B-1 on its behalf.
7. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and that the claimants as well as 4th respondent (mother of the deceased) together entitled to Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation. Interest at the rate of 12% has been awarded on the compensation from the date of the petition till the date of award and thereafter at 6% to the date of realization. The compensation has been apportioned by the Tribunal among the claimants and 4th respondent (mother) as hereunder. Claimant No.1/widow Rs.1,05,000/- with interest accrued thereon ClaimantNo.2/daughter Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon Claimant No.3/son Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon Respondent No.4/mother Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon
8. The order passed by the
