THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.632 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the Award in O.P.No.119 of 1999 dated 18-6-2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda) whereunder a compensation for a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- has been awarded in favour of the respondents 1 & 2 herein (claimants). The claimants are the parents of the deceased Rachamalla Yadagiri Reddy. The deceased being the cleaner was traveling in the lorry bearing registration No.AP-26-T-9179 belonging to the third respondent herein for the purpose of unloading paddy. The lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the house belonging to one, Punaboina Ravi (P.W.2). The vehicle overturned causing head injury to the deceased. The claimants, therefore, filed the O.P. and sought for a compensation of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The third respondent (owner of lorry) remained ex parte. The appellant - Insurance Company contested the claim on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and that the amount claimed as excessive. The Tribunal forwarded issues as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and the deceased died in such accident and whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation and if so, to what amount and by whom the amount should be paid. The second claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined Punaboina Ravi as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on his behalf. The appellant - Insurance Company did not examine any witness but filed Ex.B1 - Insurance cover note. Based on the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A4 the Tribunal held that the deceased died in the accident by use of the vehicle i.e., “offending vehicle”. It may be mentioned that although the Tribunal recorded the fact that the accident occurred, did not however specifically record a finding whether the said accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving. However, P.W.2 in his evidence stated that as there was a big noise at about 1 A.M., he woke up and went to the spot and observed that the lorry struck his thatched house and turned turtle. He further stated that as a result of the same, one person died and the lorry driver escaped from the place. Later, he learnt that the deceased was Yadagiri Reddy and that he was the cleaner of the offending lorry. He, therefore, gave the complaint to the Police. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R.No.114/1998, dated 16-12-1998 of the Gangadhara Polce Station, Karimnagar and that Punaboina Ravi was noted as complainant. Based on the complaint, the Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the driver Peddireddy Laxma Reddy. During the course of interrogation, the accused confessed his guilt. It was also stated in the charge-sheet that as a result of the accident, the cleaner (deceased) died on the spot with bleeding injuries to the head. From the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A1 and A2, it is evident that there was an accident in which the deceased died and that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver Peddireddy Laxma Reddy. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no negligence is, therefore, not acceptable. Learned counsel for the appellant however contends that the Tribunal while computing the pecuniary loss at Rs.700/- per month, wrongly applied multiplier “17” based on the age of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried and therefore the age of the deceased cannot be taken into consideration. He would further contend that in the case of unmarried persons, deduction at the rate of 50% should be applied but not 1/3rd as applied by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the claimants however submits that the Tribunal rightly took into consideration the income and deduction and the same is not liable to be interfered with. It is in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also in the investigation conducted by the Police that the deceased was the cleaner of the offending lorry. Therefore, it could be safely be said that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.1,500/- per month. Computing on the said basis and deducting 50% out of the income, the annual pecuniary loss would be Rs.9,000/- (750 x 12). It is true that taking the age of the mother into consideration, the correct multiplier would be “13”, but not “17” as applied by the Tribunal. Applying the said multiplier, the total pecuniary loss would come to Rs.1,17,000/-. In addition to the same, the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,29,500/-, as against Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs.15,500/- is liable to be reduced with interest at 9% thereon. The Award in O.P.No.119 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda is accordingly modified and the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs. _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 23rd July, 2010. Skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.632 of 2003 Date : 23-07-2010 Between : United India Insurance Co., Branch Office-2, 16/2968, Anurag Complex, Jawaharlal Road, Nellore, rep. by Authorised Insurer. .. Appellant and Smt.Rachamalla Naramma & 2 Others .. Respondents