THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3844 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The claimants-petitioners in M.V.O.P. No. 512 of 1999, dissatisfied with the orders dated 18.7.2002 passed in the said O.P. on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada, filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The said M.V.O.P. was allowed in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.58,580/- as against Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The facts in brief are that on 10.5.1999 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased boarded in auto bearing registration No.AAV 3801 to reach her village and when it reached Senapativari house, a Tractor bearing registration No. AP 5T 5564 came at high speed driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the auto, due to which, the auto turned turtle and as a result thereof the passengers of the auto sustained injuries including the deceased. The deceased was shifted to Government hospital, Mandapeta and from there to GGH, Kakinada and she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 11.5.1999 at about 8.30 p.m. The concerned P.S. registered a case in Crime No.113/99 against the driver of the tractor under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. 4. Respondent No.1-driver remained exparte. Respondent No.2- owner and Respondent No.3-insurer contested the O.P. Respondent No.2-owner contended that the accident might have occurred due to contributory negligence of both sides while admitting that he is the owner of the accident vehicle and the same was insured with respondent No.3-insurance company and the policy was in force by the date of the accident. Whereas respondent No.3-insurance company denied the petition averments and raised all the relevant pleas that are available to it and lastly contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant. 5. The first petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, got himself examined as PW.1 besides examining PW.2 who is an eye witness to the accident and PW.3 a co-traveller with the deceased and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents, except filing Ex.B.1 policy. 6. Considering the averments/pleadings of both sides, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues as to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle and as to the entitlement of the petitioners to receive the compensation as well as the responsibility of liability of the respondents to pay the same and the quantum thereof etc. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 coupled with Ex.A1-FIR in Crime No.113/99 of Mandapeta P.S., Ex.A.3-M.V.I Report and Ex.A.5-charge sheet in C.C.No.93 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver alone. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of entitlement of the petitioners and the liability of the respondents and the quantum of compensation came to the conclusion that the deceased was working in local Annapurna Rice Mill and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month basing on the evidence and other material on record. Though the first petitioner-son and second petitioner-daughter of the deceased were already married and having considered the fact that both were residing together with the deceased, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased would have been contributing at least Rs.500/- towards welfare of both the petitioners out of love and affection though not for actual dependency. 7. Considering Ex.A2-post mortem report, the age of the deceased was taken as 50 years and applied relevant multiplier ‘7.68’ relying on the decision reported in Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif [1] and calculated loss of dependency as 500 x12 x 7.68=46,080/. 8. Learned counsel on either side agreed that at present so far as the selection of appropriate multiplier is concerned, the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’ for a person aged 50 years as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2]. 9. Though in the pleadings and in the evidence of PW.3, it is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by working in Rice Mill, it cannot be said that she was earning on all the days in a month. Moreover, there was no proof to show that she was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. In the circumstances, by following the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the annual earnings of the deceased are fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum treating her to be a non- earning person. After deducting 1/3rd from the said amount towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per annum would come to Rs.10,000/-. If the same is calculated with multiplier ‘13’, the total loss of dependency would be arrived at Rs.1,30,000/- (10,000/- x 13). In addition thereto, an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate may be granted. Thus, it is to be held that the claimants- petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- which is just and reasonable. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the third respondent- insurance company raised a plea that the petitioners who are the son and daughter of the deceased are not entitled to claim any compensation as both of them were married and they were not dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act contends that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to maintain a claim petition and just and reasonable compensation is required to be awarded. According to him, it is not always the dependents who can maintain the claim petition and invariably, as per the provisions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to maintain such claim petition. 12. After hearing both sides, this court is of the view that by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the petitioners, who are son and daughter of the deceased, are not legal representatives of the deceased. They may even be dependents on the earnings of the deceased depending on the circumstances in which they are placed, though married. Therefore, as already stated herein above the claimants-petitioners are entitled to claim the aforesaid compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- and as the death was due to the injuries suffered by the deceased in the motor vehicle accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-driver. The owner of the accident-tractor is vicariously liable and since Ex.B.1 policy was in force by the date of the accident, respondent No.3-insurance company becomes liable. Therefore, it is the joint and several liability of the respondent No.2-owner and respondent No.3-insurance company and they cannot avoid liability. Therefore, they are fastened with liability to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the claimants-petitioners. 13. Lastly the learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum. She submits that as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, ( supra 2) the interest rate is 6% per annum. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners-claimants contends that it is the claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount and as such, respondent No.3-insurance company cannot raise such a plea as to the rate of interest. However, he concedes to the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra 2). 15. In the result, the C.M.A. is disposed of. The claimants-petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirthy Nine Thousand) only with interest at 6% per annum on enhanced compensation in view of the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ( supra 2). ​ ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 09 -09-2010 Stp [1] 1987 (2) ALT 1371 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298