Skip to content


Mandala Simhachalam and ors. Vs. Neduru Trinath and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Motor Vehicles

Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Case Number

CMA No. 1471 of 2001

Judge

Reported in

II(2007)ACC48; 2007(3)ALD56

Appellant

Mandala Simhachalam and ors.

Respondent

Neduru Trinath and ors.

Appellant Advocate

Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

B.G. Uma Devi, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

Excerpt:


.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase..........in granting only rs.5,000/- to the 1st claimant-wife under the head 'loss of consortium' and in not granting any amount towards funeral expenses. he thus submitted that the award of the tribunal needs modification.4. on the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents supported the award and contended that the compensation granted by the tribunal is just and reasonable, and needs no enhancement.5. heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned standing counsel for the official respondents-apsrtc.6. there is no dispute as to the negligence and the manner in which the accident took place, in which the deceased died. though the claimants contend that the deceased was earning rs. 60/-per day by doing coolie work, but in the absence of any acceptable evidence produced by the claimants, to prove that the deceased was earning rs. 60/- per day, no exception can be taken to the action of the tribunal in. taking rs. 40/- per day, the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled worker, and computing the said wage for 25 days in a month, and working out the monthly salary of the deceased at rs. 1,000/-, and upon deducing 1/3rd towards his personal.....

Judgment:


N.V. Ramana, J.

1. Aggrieved by the award dated 27-10-2000, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram, awarding a sum of Rs. 89,597/- as against their claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- the appellants-claimants filed this appeal.

2. On account of the death of one Mandala Janardhana Rao in a road accident that occurred on 30-11-1997 when the bus belonging to APSRTC bearing No.AEZ 5890 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit him, his legal heirs, namely his wife, three children and mother, filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from APSRTC and its driver. The driver of the bus remained ex parte. APSRTC contested the claim. However, the Tribunal considering the evidence placed on record, held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, and awarded a sum of Rs. 89,597/-, which according to the claimants is very meager.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the deceased was working as a coolie and earning Rs. 60/- per day, and the Tribunal committed an error in taking only Rs. 40/-per day, and that too for 25 days. Considering the age of the deceased, which was 45 years as on the date of his death, the learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier 11 and not 10.45 as applied by it in computing the compensation. He submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in granting only Rs.5,000/- to the 1st claimant-wife under the head 'loss of consortium' and in not granting any amount towards funeral expenses. He thus submitted that the award of the Tribunal needs modification.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents supported the award and contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, and needs no enhancement.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the official respondents-APSRTC.

6. There is no dispute as to the negligence and the manner in which the accident took place, in which the deceased died. Though the claimants contend that the deceased was earning Rs. 60/-per day by doing coolie work, but in the absence of any acceptable evidence produced by the claimants, to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 60/- per day, no exception can be taken to the action of the Tribunal in. taking Rs. 40/- per day, the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled worker, and computing the said wage for 25 days in a month, and working out the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/-, and upon deducing 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, arriving his contribution to the family at Rs. 666/- per month.

7. The age of the deceased, as evidenced by Ex.A3-post-mortem certificate is 45, and the multiplier that is applicable in the case of death of a person aged 45 years is 11, and since the Tribunal has applied the wrong multiplier of 10.45, the loss of contribution to the family by the deceased has to be computed by applying the multiplier 11. If the multiplier of 11 is applied, the compensation which the claimants would be entitled to is (Rs.666 x 12 x 11) Rs. 87,912/-. Therefore, the compensation granted by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency shall stand enhanced from Rs. 69,597/- to Rs. 87,912/-.

8. Inasmuch as the Tribunal has granted only Rs. 5,000/- to appellant-claimant No. 1 towards loss of consortium, the same requires enhancement to Rs. 15,000/-, and it is accordingly enhanced. The Tribunal, admittedly, did not grant any amount towards funeral expenses. The claimants obviously would have spent some amounts for the funeral of the deceased, and it is appropriate that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is granted towards funeral expenses.

9. With the modification as above, the compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants is enhanced from Rs. 89,597/-to Rs. 1,02,912/-. Having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya 2005 ACJ 1442, the enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till realization.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //