IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.746 of 2006 Dated:29-08-2011 Between: Pirikiti Venkateswarlu and another. ….Appellants. And V.Jayaraju and another ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.746 of 2006 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal is filed at the instance of claimants directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.1289 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – III Additional District Judge, Guntur on 19.09.2005. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Pirikiti Peda Venkata Naryana @ Venkata Narayana, filed claim application for compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- for the death of their son in the motor vehicle accident. On 14.08.2001 at 12.00 noon the deceased coming on his Suzuki motor cycle bearing No.AP 7G 9823 along with a cooli after completion of the rice mill works from Chilakaluripet town on NH5 road and when he reached the newly formed road near T.Lakshma Reddy Rubber industries, two kilometers south to the Chilakaluripet Rural Police Station limits, a lorry bearing No. AP 04U 1323, driven by its driver coming in opposite direction and hit the motor cycle of the deceased and the front tyre of the lorry ran over the deceased, as a result of which, he died on the spot. The Insurance Company has filed the counter alleging that the accident was caused due to the fault of the deceased himself and he was not holding proper driving license at the time of the accident and put the petitioners to strict proof with regard to the age and earning capacity of the deceased. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 04U 1323? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and if so to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief? The 2nd petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 Insurance Policy was marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- by taking into consideration of the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum as there is no satisfactory evidence in respect of the income of the deceased and further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and funeral expenses etc. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel for appellants has pleaded that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of his death and he studied up to Intermediate and looking after the rice mill business for the last 3 years and he was getting remuneration of Rs.8,000/- per month in the beginning and from 1st April, 2000 he was paid Rs.12,000/- per month towards remuneration for looking after rice mill business, as such the income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken into consideration of the salary certificate Ex.A.5 issued in favour of the deceased and income tax returns Exs.A.7 to A.10 and also taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W.3 Chartered Accountant and found that there is no satisfactory evidence as to the income of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased, his petitioners and paternal grandfather of the deceased are the members of the joint family and they were the partners of the boiled rice mill. The Ex.A.5 salary certificate shows that the deceased was paid Rs.12,000/- per month towards his salary. Income tax returns Exs.A.7 to A.10 are filed subsequent to the death of the deceased, as such they cannot be relied upon. Even Ex.A.5 salary certificate also cannot be relied upon as there is no material on record to show that the deceased was a partner of the firm and the deceased was entitled to get the salary from the said firm. Moreover, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the account books of the firm were not produced to show that the salary was being paid to the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased studied up to Intermediate and attending to rice mill work and aged about 20 years, he might have been getting some income by attending the work of the rice mill, but the petitioners could not establish the actual income of the deceased by producing reliable evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of Rs.15,000/- as per the II schedule attached to Motor Vehicles Act treating the deceased as non earning member. Since the deceased is attending to work of the rice mill and he studied up to Intermediate, he cannot be termed as non earning member simple because the petitioners have failed to establish the actual income of the deceased. Even a daily labour is getting Rs.100/- per day by doing cooli work and the same can be adopted for arriving the income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.3,000/-. Since the deceased is unmarried, as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)” the loss of dependency of the petitioners is only 50%. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,500/- per month. The annual loss of dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1,500 X 12 = Rs.18,000/-). Since the deceased is bachelor, the age of the mother of the deceased has to be taken into consideration for applying multiplier. As per the cause title, the age of the mother of the deceased is ‘40’ years. Thus, the proper multiplier as per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) is ‘15’. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.18,000 X 15 = Rs.2,70,000/). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and funeral expenses etc., we do not want to disturb the awarding of Rs.25,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for Rs.2,95,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,85,000/- to Rs.2,95,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:29-08-2011 Ksp