IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH [6TH] DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4109 of 2008 Between: United India Insurance Co.Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kadapa … Appellant And: Nama Rathnamaiah & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4109 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.09.2007 in MV OP No.319 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, wherein, the said petition filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein, was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein-claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Lakshmikanth @ Srikanthudu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.10.2003. The claimants 1 and 2 are the parents, 3rd claimant is the younger brother and 4th claimant is the grand mother of the deceased. According to them, the deceased along with others, boarded the Allwyn van bearing No.AP 04 U 5187 and when the van crossed Gollapalli bridge on Yerraguntla-Kadapa main road, a lorry bearing No.TN 23 C 3767 came in the opposite direction, driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the van, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died. Kamalapuram Police registered a case in Cr.No.86 of 2003 against the driver of the lorry. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 23 years, unmarried and was doing business in sweets and earning Rs.4,500/- per month 4. The 5th respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The appellant/insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the deceased Nama Lakshmikath @ Srikanthudu died in a motor vehicle accident on 12.10.2003 at 4.45 p.m. near Gollapalli bridge on Yerraguntla-Kadapa main road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN 23 C 3767 of the first respondent being insured with the 2nd respondent? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-insurer. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TN 23 C 3767 by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, an award was passed for Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver is not seriously disputed. The main contention of the appellant/insurer is that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd instead of half towards personal expenses from out of the income of the deceased and also erred in applying the multiplier ‘15’ instead of ‘14’, which is suitable multiplier for the age of the mother of the deceased as per the decision of the Apex Court in ‘Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]’. 8. It is not disputed that the deceased was unmarried and was aged 23 years. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and the same was also not seriously disputed. Deducting 1/3rd thereof towards personal expenses, the Tribunal arrived the contribution of the deceased to the family in a sum of Rs.24,000/- per annum (Rs.2,000/- x 12). 9. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) held as follows: ‘In case of unmarried person, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third’. 10. In the present case, the deceased who was bachelor left behind his parents, who are aged 46 and 43 years respectively and younger brother who was then 17 years. Of course, the grand mother of the deceased, who was aged 80 years also joined as a claimant, but she cannot be considered to be a dependent on the deceased, as her son is very much alive to take care of her welfare. Further, the father of the deceased was aged 46 years and he can earn for his livelihood and also to support his family comprising his wife and another son. Thus, the number of the dependents on the deceased is not large enough so as to restrict personal expenses of the deceased to 1/3rd. Under those circumstances, following the decision of the Apex Court in ‘Sarla Verma’s case (supra), it is considered just and reasonable to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and the balance 50% can be taken as his contribution to the family. As per the same decision, the appropriate multiplier applicable to a person aged 43 years is ‘14’. The mother of the deceased, whose age is to be taken into consideration in view of the fact that the deceased was unmarried, was 43 years and the appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’. Thus the loss of dependency on account of death of the deceased works out to Rs.1500/- x 12 = Rs.18,000/- per annum x 14 (multiplier) = Rs.2,52,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as per the decision cited supra. The amount awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, are therefore, not sustainable. 11. In the circumstances, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs.2,62,000/- (Rs.2,52,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) towards compensation, with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 06.07.2010 bss [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)=2009 ACJ 1298