IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, :: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4321 OF 2008 Between: M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, V.I.P.Road, C.B.M. Compound, Visakhapatnam. …Appellant A n d Keesari Lakshmi and 3 others ...Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4321 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 22-05-2008 in M.V.O.P.No.899 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Guntur, wherein the claim of respondents 1 to 3 herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents and no representation is made on their behalf. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of death of the deceased Keesari Maheswara Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21-04-2007 at 07-00 A.M., near Avulavaripalem village. The first claimant is mother, second claimant is brother and third claimant is sister of the deceased. According to them, on that day, when the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 7W 9551 from Chadrajupalem village, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto, the vehicle overturned, resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased and others and the deceased died while undergoing treatment in Government Hospital, Sattenapalli. It is further pleaded that the deceased was aged 20 years and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, besides studying intermediate. 4. The owner of the auto remained ex parte before the tribunal. The appellant-insurer filed written statement opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial: i) Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP 7W 9551 by its driver? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioner would be entitled to and against whom? iii) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 7. 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 auto by its driver. On issue No.2, the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,77,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7% per annum, with a liberty to the appellant-insurer to recover the compensation amount from the owner, as there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed by the insurer. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased into consideration instead of taking the age of the mother of the deceased for estimating the loss of dependency, as the deceased was unmarried and the tribunal further erred in applying the multiplier ‘17’ instead of ‘15’. She would further submit that in the absence of any evidence showing the income of the deceased, the tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of Rs.15,000/- into consideration. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the tribunal erred in awarding loss of consortium in a sum of Rs.15,000/-, though the deceased was unmarried and also awarded excess amount towards transportation, attendant charges and funeral expenses. 9. The finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver is not seriously disputed. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged 20 years and was unmarried. While computing the compensation towards loss of dependency, the age of the mother of the deceased ought to be taken into consideration, as the deceased was unmarried. The age of the mother is stated to be 40 years and the appropriate multiplier as per the recent decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ’15. The deceased was stated to be earning Rs.4,000/- per month, besides studying intermediate. The claimants have not placed any evidence on record to show that the deceased was doing any job or earning any income of Rs.4,000/- per month. Without any basis in the evidence, the tribunal has taken the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.20,000/- per annum instead of taking the notional income. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, which can be taken as a guide, the notional income of a person, who is a non-earning member, can be taken as Rs.15,000/-. Deducting one-third thereof towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.10,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier ‘15’, which is suitable to the age of the mother of the deceased, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x ‘15’). The question of granting any compensation towards loss of consortium in a sum of Rs.15,000/-, as done by the tribunal, does not arise, as the deceased was unmarried and hence the said amount has to be deleted. It is stated that the deceased died while undergoing treatment and he was in hospital for 10 days after the accident. Under those circumstances, the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards transportation, attendant charges and funeral expenses is considered to be just and reasonable and the amount of Rs.20,000/- granted towards medical expenses, does not also call for any interference. The claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate as per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. In the circumstances, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,87,500/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- + Rs.2,500) with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition. The appellant-insurer is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, as ordered by the tribunal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed –in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th July, 2010. Lrkm. [1] 2009 ACJ 1298