IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for motor vehicle accidents must be just and can be enhanced even without cross-objections from claimants, following the multiplier method.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No. 103 of 2013 dated 06.04.2016.

2. The appellant is the insurer of the JCB motor vehicle bearing No. AP 5BB 0357 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein are wife, children and mother of one Satti Venkata Rathnam (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’). Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are driver and owner of the said crime vehicle.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

(i) On 29.10.2012, the deceased died in an accident occurred due to negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the 1st respondent.

(ii) The deceased was aged about 45 years and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by doing finance business and seasonal pulses commission business. Being dependents, they claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.

5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent.

6. The respondent No. 3 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred only due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, but not the 1st respondent/driver.

7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e. JCB bearing No. AP 05BB 0357 by the 1st respondent and to cause the accident in question?

2. Whether the 1st respondent driver of the crime vehicle has possessed valid and effective driving license by the time of accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation amount, if so from whom and to what extent?

4. To what relief?”

8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs. 1 to 32 were examined (the evidence of PW-3 is eschewed), Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.B.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1 copy of policy was marked.

9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, held that claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,59,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer.

11. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Sivaram, learned counsel representing Sri Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants.

12. Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the incident; that the Tribunal failed to see that the driver of the crime vehicle not possessed any driving license to drive the same at the time of accident; that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record, erroneously granted compensation and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.

13. Sri Sivaram, learned counsel representing Sri Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants submits that the tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle; that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation even without any cross objections; that under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants without any appeal or c