THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1976 and 2314 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT Since both these appeals are filed against the award, dated 04.04.2008, passed in O.P.No.1682 of 2006 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, they are being disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. The claimants filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the death of one Ch.Srinivas in a road accident occurred on 02.05.2006 at about 4.00 PM, near Saint Arnold Knowledge School, Toopranpet, Medak District, when he was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 23 U 690 due to hit by a lorry bearing No.ABV 2007 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction. Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. By the award impugned, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.3,88,500/-to the claimants with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, payable by the owner and the insurance company jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed MACMA No.1976 of 2008 and the claimants filed MACMA No.2314 of 2008. 3. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the Court below ought to have considered the FIR, wherein it was mentioned that the deceased sat on the right side of the driver of the auto contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and as such, there was contributory negligence on his part. He further contended that the Court below erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company, as there was contributory negligence of both the drivers of auto and lorry at the time of accident. He also contended that the Court below had wrongly calculated the age of the mother of the deceased as 40 years as the age of the father was shown as 50 years in the charge sheet. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Court below had wrongly taken the earnings of the deceased on lower side and granted less compensation. 6. P.W.2-eyewitness stated in his evidence that the driver of the lorry drove it in high speed at the time of accident. To rebut this evidence, the insurance company has not examined any witness. Insofar as contributory negligence of the deceased is concerned, FIR-Ex.A1 clearly shows about his sitting on right side of the driver of the auto at the time of accident and the same is contrary to the Act and as such, this Court is of the considered view that he was also responsible for the injuries sustained by him and therefore, the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased can be determined at 25%. 7. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the Court below has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, but Ex.A6-salary certificate shows that he was earning monthly income at Rs.4,000/-per month. Since no competent person was examined to prove Ex.A6, some marginal income of Rs.3,500/-per month would be taken as the earnings of the deceased and annually at Rs.42,000/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, the age of his mother, i.e., 40 years, as per the claim petition, would be taken for determining the compensation. If half of his income would be deducted towards his personal expenses, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.21,000/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 40 years is ‘15’, and thereby, the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.21,000X15=3,15,000/-. In addition to it, a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection are also awarded. In total, the compensation comes to Rs.3,35,000/-. Since the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was at 25%, the compensation comes to Rs.2,51,250/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Court below is reduced from Rs.3,88,500/- to Rs.2,51,250/-.The order of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 8. With the above modification, the MACMA No.1976 of 2008 is allowed in part and MACMA No.2314 of 2008 is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:10.03.2011 sj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121