IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.1652 of 2007 and M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.681 of 2011 Between: Shankaraiah and others .. Appellants/Petitioners AND Indiramma and another .. Respondents/Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.624 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, dated 28-04-1999 and M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.681 of 2011 is for permission to amend the claim into one for Rs.5,00,000/- from Rs.2,50,000/-. R. Radha Krishna Goud was going on a scooter on 19-05-1997 at about 10 A.M. when lorry No.AP 11T 8902 dashed against the scooter killing Radha Krishna Goud. Radha Krishna Goud was claimed by his parents and sister to be earning Rs.2,000/- per month, contributed to the dependents and hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. While the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim denying all the allegations of the claimants and not admitting the insurance of the vehicle. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and B.1 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award that the death of Radha Krishna Goud was due to the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry as disclosed by Exs.A.1 and A.2, first information report and charge-sheet, corroborated by P.W.2. In assessing the compensation payable, the Tribunal refused to accept the evidence of P.W.3 about the deceased being employed under him for a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- and it assessed his income at Rs.600/- per month. On such income, applying a multiplier of 10 for the age of 45 years of the mother, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to award Rs.72,000/- towards loss of dependency and further non-pecuniary damages of Rs.15,000/- making a total of Rs.87,000/- payable with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The Tribunal gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The claimants preferred the present appeal contending that the income should have been accepted as Rs.2,000/- per month and the compensation as claimed should have been awarded. In M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.681 of 2011, they claimed that they are entitled as per their calculation to more than the original sum claimed and hence, desired for permission to amend the claim. Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Miss V. Durga, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent insurer are heard, while the appeal stood dismissed for default against the owner of the vehicle by an order of this Court, dated 16-09-2005. The owner or insurer of the vehicle did not challenge the conclusion of the Tribunal about the cause of the accident being the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and therefore, the joint and several liability of the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased, cannot be in dispute. It is only the quantum to which the claimants are entitled that is the subject of adjudication in this appeal. The alleged employer of the deceased deposed as P.W.3 about employing the deceased under him for a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-, which was certified by him in Ex.A.5. The Tribunal, which had the benefit of physically observing P.W.3 during his evidence, considered the employment of the deceased with him and the payment of Rs.2,000/- per month as salary as highly improbable and to disturb the said finding of fact straight away, there is no strong material available to this Court. However, the Tribunal itself has noted that the deceased was a grown up unmarried person who could have earned a reasonable income. That the deceased was otherwise was hale and healthy, was not disputed and that he would have made every effort to support his parents and sister, cannot also be in doubt. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act presumes even a non-earning person to be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum notionally for purposes of assessment of compensation under the said Act and the Tribunal could not have assessed any lesser income for the deceased even in the absence of any evidence. If the notional income fixed by the Second Schedule were to be, thus, taken as the basis and the age of the mother at 45 years, about which there was no proof according to the Tribunal, were to be considered, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] will be 15 (as there was no positive proof of the mother completing 45 years by the date of the accident). Deduction has to be made towards personal expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive and in this connection, Sri Jagathpal Reddy invited attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Deo Patodi[2], wherein the Apex Court held that indisputably, deduction of one- third for personal expenses is an ordinary rule in India. That decision did not refer to the principle laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra). But even Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation recognized that depending on the dependence of the family of a bachelor on the income of the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-thirds. In the light of the latter decision of the Apex Court by the Bench of coordinate strength and in view of the possibility kept open in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra) itself, on the present facts and circumstances, deduction of one-third towards living expenses of the deceased will be in tune with the interests of justice and if on the balance of notional income of Rs.10,000/- per annum, a multiplier of 15 were to be applied, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,50,000/-. It may be incidentally noted that even if the income of Rs.2,000/- claimed by P.W.3 as per Ex.A.5 were to be accepted, the deduction of half of such income as laid down by Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra) would not have, more or less, left significantly much higher income than being assessed as per the Second Schedule. Apart from the loss of dependency of Rs.1,50,000/-, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra) and the total compensation which they should have been reasonably granted, comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. Miss V. Durga, learned standing counsel for the insurer vehemently protested against the rate of interest granted at 12 per cent per annum on the original compensation. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra), the Apex Court, though without assigning any specific reason, adopted the rate of interest of 6 per cent per annum and keeping in view that the insurer, a custodian of public funds, is to pay interest from 1997, the date of the petition up to date of payment, the interest can be reasonably limited to 6 per cent per annum. Therefore, the award, dated 28-04-1999 in O.P. No.624 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy is modified by granting a total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh and sixty thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The apportionment of the compensation between the three claimants shall be in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be apportioned and no further directions need be given at this distance of time regarding disbursement of the compensation. The civil miscellaneous appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. As the compensation payable to the claimants as per law was found to be much less than even the original claim of Rs.2,50,000/-, any amendment of the claim at this stage is not only belated but also is unnecessary and consequently, M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.681 of 2011 is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-09-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] 2009 ACJ 2359