IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBURARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2074 of 2003 Between: B. Sangamma and others ..... Appellants And Ahmed Sab and another …Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 23-10-2002 in OP.No.241 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. B. Bheemanna going on a scooter as a pillion rider on 3-11- 1995 at about 8.30.A.M. was involved in a motor accident when an opposite coming lorry No.AHT 6318 dashed against the scooter and Bheemanna died on the spot. Sadasivapet police registered Crime No.233 of 1995 against the driver of the lorry and the lorry is owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. Bheemanna was studying second year I.T.I. and would have earned not less than Rs.2,000/- per month after completing his education. The parents and the stepmother sued for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and on the death of the father during the pendency of the claim, the claimants 4 and 5 were also impleaded as his legal representatives. The compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- was desired to be awarded with 18% p.a. interest and costs. The claimants filed O.P.No.60 of 1996 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for no fault liability compensation. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte while the insurer denied all the allegations of the claimants and contended that the scooter driver was rash and negligent in driving leading to the accident and hence, the driver, owner and insurer of the scooter are necessary parties. The compensation claimed was criticized to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants and examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and B.1 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the evidence of PW.2-the eye-witness corroborated by Ex.A.1- Order in O.P.No.400 of 1997 granting compensation in respect of the same accident to the dependents of the other deceased, Ex.A.2-copy of the decree in the same claim, Ex.A.3-FIR, Ex.A.4- Inquest report and Ex.A.6-Charge Sheet. The Tribunal considered that the deceased would have earned Rs.1500/- to Rs.2000/- only after completion of ITI course and refused to draw any comparison with an Engineering student. The Tribunal also referred to the other precedents cited and following Amati Hymavathi and another v. Nissankara Rao Sri Krishna Murthy and others (1998 (3) ALD 244) assessed the contribution of the deceased at Rs.500/- per month. The age of the 2nd claimant, the mother, was considered to be between 50 and 55 years with reference to the age of the 3rd claimant-the second wife of the 1st claimant and the photographs of the claimants 2 and 3. Applying a multiplier of 7, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.42,000/- and awarded a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.3,000/- towards incidental expenses, making a total of Rs.60,000/-. Interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs were also awarded, while deduction of no fault liability awarded in O.P.No.60 of 1996 was directed to be made. The claimants were aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded and contended herein that the deceased would have completed his studies within six months to enable him to earn more than Rs.2,000/- per month and his contribution could not have been assessed at anything less than Rs.1500/- per month. The age of the 2nd claimant could not have been considered to be 55 years and interest could not have been less than 12% p.a. Therefore, the claimants desired the balance compensation also to be granted. Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N. Mohana Krishna, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer are heard and none entered appearance before this Court for the owner of the vehicle. Insofar as the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving is concerned, the conclusion of the Tribunal remained unchallenged and had become final. The ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent being not in dispute, the entitlement of the claimants, his dependents/legal representatives to just and adequate compensation for the death of Bheemanna in the accident cannot be in question. The reasonableness of the quantum of compensation alone is to be adjudicated herein. Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants brought to notice that in C.M.A.No.1409 of 2003, a learned Judge of this Court decided on 29-7-2010 the claim of the dependents of T. Krishna, who was driving the scooter on which the deceased Bheemanna was going as pillion rider. In respect of the claim arising out of the same accident in respect of Sri T. Krishna, who was also a student of ITI and was unmarried and was of the same age, the learned Judge was inclined to consider the annual income to be Rs.15,000/- as the notional income of a non-earning person, deducted 1/3rd of the same towards his personal expenses and decided the contribution to be Rs.10,000/-p.a. to the family. The Tribunal also granted Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of estate and loss of love and affection, apart from loss of dependency calculated with reference to the multiplier applicable to the age of the mother. When T. Krishna and the deceased Bheemanna stand on the same footing in every respect, the assessment of compensation in the claim arising out of the same accident in C.M.A.No.1409 of 2003, can be taken as a safe guide in the interests of justice in the present case also. Even otherwise, the fact that Bheemanna was a student of ITI was not in dispute and that he was otherwise hale and healthy and could have been gainfully employed on completion of studies also cannot be in dispute. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act assessed the income of even a non-earning person as Rs.15,000/-p.a. and in fact, a Division Bench of this Court in B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore and another[1] directed the minimum income of an Engineering graduate to be fixed as Rs.12,000/- per month. Even in respect of students, the Division Bench directed that 10% deduction in respect of each year may be made. Though the deceased boy was not in the Engineering course, still he was a student of a technical course with undoubted potential for decent employment after completion of studies. The learned counsel for the insurer contended that as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2], the deduction towards personal and living expenses in the case of a bachelor should be 50%, but by the same decision, where the family of the bachelor is large, the Apex Court permitted restricting the personal and living expenses to 1/3rd. The contribution to the five claimants before the Tribunal can, therefore, be taken as 2/3rd of the notional income, while also noting that even the assessment of the notional income is conservative and not liberal. If the principles laid down by the Division Bench referred to above were to be considered, such notional income has to be assessed at much higher quantum. The age of the natural mother of the deceased Bheemanna was claimed by the claimants to be only 40 years by the time of making the claim. But, it is seen that with reference to the two photographs of the wives of the deceased-1st claimant and the probability of the first wife being more aged than the second wife, the Tribunal took the age of the 2nd claimant as between 50 and 55 years. The specification of the age of the claimants 1 to 3 in the claim petition was obviously in approximation and not in exactitude. In fact, the mother of Bheemanna/the 2nd claimant is the second wife of the first claimant, while the 3rd claimant is the first wife and if the 3rd claimant was aged 50 years by the time of the claim, the 2nd claimant should have been younger. If the eldest son of the second wife of Bheemanna was aged about 20 years, there was nothing unnatural in the 2nd claimant being aged 40 years by the time of accident. During the cross-examination of PW.1, the 3rd claimant, nothing was suggested or elicited about the incorrectness in the claim about the age of the 2nd claimant and even assuming that the age of the 2nd claimant was attempted to be marginally reduced and even if she were to be taken as aged 40 to 45 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 14 as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation (stated supra) and the loss of dependency should, therefore, be considered as Rs.10,000/- X 14. As per the same decision, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, making a total of Rs.1,50,000/-. Even if any other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages like loss of love and affection etc., were not to be taken into account also, the claimants are thus entitled to the total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed by them. Interest on the compensation can be the same as awarded by the Tribunal while costs also shall follow suit. Though the claimants desired the interest at 12% p.a., grant of interest at 9% p.a. is in tune with the then prevailing rate of interest and need not be interfered with. In the result, the award dated 23-10-2002 in O.P.No.241 of 1998 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy is modified and O.P.No.241 of 1998 is allowed granting a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally and out of the said compensation, no fault liability compensation awarded in O.P.No.60 of 1996 to a tune of Rs.50,000/- shall be deducted. The 2nd claimant shall alone be entitled to receive the entire compensation as ordered by the Tribunal in the impugned award and the appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-02-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 (6) ALD 684 (DB) [2] 2009 ACJ 1298