THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.761 of 2003 Date : 26-08-2010 Between : Patolla Ramreddy and others .. Appellants and D.Satyanarayana and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.761 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation pursuant to award in O.P.No.429 of 1993, dated 12-02-1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. Respondent No.1 was the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP 9 Z 2706. Although this appeal was dismissed against him for default, it has no consequence on the appeal since the second respondent-APSRTC, being the employer of respondent No.1, is on record. The claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of Vishnuvardhan Reddy, who died in a road accident on 30-09-1992. Claimants 3, 4 and 5 are the siblings of the deceased. As against the claim of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation sought for, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.43,000/- only. This appeal is therefore filed seeking enhancement of compensation. Briefly stated, it is the case of the claimants that on 30-09-1992 the deceased Vishnuvardhan Reddy was traveling in a bus of the second respondent herein bearing registration No.AEZ 1904 from Narayankhed towards Hyderabad. Another bus of the said respondent bearing registration No.AP 9 Z 2706, which was proceeding from Hyderabad to Narayankhed, hit the bus in which the deceased was traveling. In the said incident the deceased received injuries and succumbed. The claimants, therefore, filed the O.P. and sought for the compensation as stated above. The second respondent-APSRTC contested the claim stating that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligence. It was contended that while the vehicle bearing registration No. AP 9 Z 2706 was proceeding, as some buffaloes came across the road, the driver applied breaks and in the meanwhile, the other bus bearing registration No.AEZ 1904, coming in the opposite direction, hit the bus. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated issues whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid buses and the deceased died in the said accident; whether claimants are the sole legal heirs of the deceased and whether they are entitled for compensation and to what amount. The father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Sanjeevaiah, who was an eyewitness, was examined as P.W.2. Ex.A1 - certified copy of the F.I.R.; Ex.A2 – certified copy of Inquest; Ex.A3 – certified copy of the Postmortem Report; Ex.A4 – certified copy of M.V.I. Report; Ex.A5 – original transfer certificate and Ex.A6 – Provisional National Trade Certificate were marked as exhibits on behalf of the claimants. The APSRTC did not adduce any evidence. On a consideration of the evidence on record and having regard to the fact that both the vehicles belonged to the APSRTC, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers and consequently held that the second respondent-APSRTC is liable for compensation. The Tribunal also held that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. As regards quantum of compensation, Rs.25,000/- which was awarded in O.P.No.240 of 1993 under no fault liability was given credit to and in addition to the same, awarded Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damage and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral and other expenses, thus awarded Rs.43,000/- in all. Not satisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed the present appeal. Heard Sri Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, standing counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the second respondent. Sri Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raji Reddy, would submit that the Tribunal failed to follow the established principles in awarding the compensation. No approach has been made to ascertain the pecuniary loss caused due to the death of the deceased and the deceased was a qualified electrician and the same has not been taken into consideration. The learned counsel therefore would submit that if the settled principles are applied, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the amount was reasonably granted and the same does not require any enhancement. Indisputably the deceased was aged 20 years as per Ex.A5 Transfer Certificate wherein the date of birth was noted as 31st March, 1971. There is also no dispute that the deceased passed trade test in the trade of electrician and was awarded National Trade Certificate by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Employment and Training. Therefore, he was a qualified technician. He became qualified in the said trade in July, 1999. It can therefore reasonably be inferred that the deceased would have secured employment and earned some income. However, the Tribunal declined to accept on the only ground that the deceased did not secure any job for over one year. In my considered opinion in the matter of grant of compensation whether a person has secured any employment is not wholly relevant. On the other hand, the probability of securing a job is a relevant ground. Even if a qualified person is without job at the moment, he may have to be construed as a non-earning member. In such an event, the income should be notionally construed as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Therefore, I am of the view that the pecuniary loss should be calculated by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. The deceased was a bachelor, in such a case the age of the mother should be taken into consideration. Indisputably the mother of the deceased was 40 years and multiplier ‘15’ has to be applied as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. On such calculation, the pecuniary loss would be Rs.2,25,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% is liable to be deducted from the said amount towards personal expenses. The balance therefore would be Rs.1,12,500/-, to which the claimants are entitled towards pecuniary damages. In addition to the same the claimants are all entitled for conventional amounts. Admittedly, the Tribunal has not awarded any amounts towards loss of estate and expenses towards transport. Applying the principles in the judgment cited above, the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,24,500/-. The Tribunal since awarded Rs.43,000/-, the balance would be Rs.81,500/-. I, therefore, hold that the claimants are entitled for Rs.81,500/- as enhancement of compensation in this appeal. The said amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Award in O.P.No.429 of 1993, dated 12-02-1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy is modified accordingly and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 26th August, 2010 skmr [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121