IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH (26TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M A CMA No.1847 of 2010 Between: M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., Hyderabad … Appellant And: P. Venkateshwarlu & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.1847 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2010 in OP No.2690 of 2008 on the file of the MACT cum XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.4,76,000/-. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased P.Ravi, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.10.2008. The first claimant is the father and claimants 2 and 3 are the unmarried sisters of the deceased Ravi. According to them, on that day, the deceased was proceeding on his Yamaha Crux motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 K 9410 towards Hanumanwada side, Bhongir and when he reached near Church, Kisan Nagar X road, a lorry bearing No.AP 36 V 9141 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died while being shifted to the hospital. The police of Bhongir registered a case in Cr.No.202 of 2008 against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimant, the deceased was aged 23 years and was working as a goldsmith in Venkateswara Jewelry shop and earning Rs.5000/- p.m. as salary and Rs.5000/- as commission. 4. The fourth respondent herein-owner of the lorry remained ex-parte. The appellant-insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the insurer. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,76,000/- . Accordingly, the award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurer. 5. the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased into consideration and applying the multiplier ‘17’ though the first claimant-father is aged 70 years. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3-claimants seeks to justify the award on the ground that the mother of the deceased is no more and therefore, the age of the deceased was taken into consideration for the purpose of applying multiplier. 6. It is not disputed that the evidence on record shows that the deceased was a goldsmith by profession as can be seen from Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.3 inquest report, Ex.A.6 service certificate issued by Sri Venkateswara Jewelers, wherein it is stated that the deceased was being paid Rs.4500/- per month as salary. The Tribunal has therefore rightly taken the said amount of Rs.4500/- per month as income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.150/- per day, as the deceased was a skilled worker being a goldsmith. The Tribunal however took the age of the deceased, who was aged 23 years by the date of his death, into consideration and applied the multiplier ‘17’ as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case. Accordingly, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.4,59,000/- taking the contribution of the deceased at Rs.27,000/-. The deceased was unmarried by the date of the accident. His mother pre-deceased him. His father and two sisters alone were surviving members of the family. The first claimant-father is aged about 70 years. Naturally he was dependent upon the income of the deceased, as he had no other source of income nor was he having any earning capacity at that age. The sisters can however deemed to be dependents on the deceased only till they got married and not thereafter. It is stated that subsequent to the death of the deceased, the 2nd claimant also got married and therefore, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards her share as she was unmarried by the date of the death of the deceased. The 3rd claimant another sister can be deemed to be a dependent on her brother only till she gets married. Taking the age of the deceased into consideration for the purpose of applying the multiplier and assessing the loss of dependency, does not therefore stand to reason, inasmuch as the first claimant father, who is already aged 70 years will not be dependent on the deceased for ever and 3rd claimant unmarried sister would be dependent only till she gets married. She was already aged 14 years by the date of filing of the petition in the year 2008. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the age of the father of the deceased who is the person solely dependent on the deceased for the rest of his life and arrived at the loss of dependency by applying the multiplier appropriate to the age of the first claimant-father besides granting some amounts towards loss of love and affection for the married siter-2nd claimant and unmarried sister-3rd claimant. As per Sarla Varma’s ((2009)6 SCC 121) case, the appropriate multiplier for the age of the first claimant is ‘5’. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works to Rs.27,000/- x 5 = Rs.1,35,000/-. The 2nd claimant, who got married subsequent to the accident and 3rd claimant, who is still unmarried sister of the deceased, are held entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively, towards loss of love and affection. The claimants are also held entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- towards transport charges, as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,97,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 26.08.2011 bss