THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No. 1627 of 2010 Judgment: This appeal is directed by the ICICI LOMBARD General Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 27.04.2010 passed in MVOP No. 239 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The claimant No.1 is the mother, claimant No.2 is the father, claimant No.3 is the brother and claimant No.4 is the sister of the deceased. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as a Driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family. Their further case is that on 02.05.2008 at about 2.30 PM while the deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 36 J 6071 along with his friend from Tharigoppula village towards Chairyal B.T. Road and when they reached in front of Macha Chiranjeevi house the Auto Trolley bearing No. AP 15 W 8604 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injuries and other multiple injuries all over the body. The deceased was shifted to Janagaon Government Area Hospital and after first aid he was referred to MGM Hospital at Warangal, where he died while undergoing treatment. The first respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company contested the matter and denied the averments of the claimants with regard to manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased. On behalf of the claimants the first claimant was examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the entire evidence and material on record, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto Trolley, awarded compensation of Rs.5,91,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the deceased was unmarried and in case of unmarried persons the settled legal position is that 50% of the income should have been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased but the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses . It is also his submission that though the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but the settled legal position is that in accidental cases the appellate Court can interfere when it finds that the Tribunal has applied wrong principle of law or has awarded very low or too excessive amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that when the appellant has not obtained permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act he cannot challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Of course, he has also not disputed that where in a case the deceased is unmarried only 50% of the income of the deceased should have been deducted towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal on issue No.1 whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, on appreciation of evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal observed that even a labourer is getting not less than Rs.150/- per day and holding so, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.150/- per day. However, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and loss of contribution was estimated at Rs.36,000/- per annum. As far as the other aspects such as taking multiplier or awarding other amounts towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are concerned there is no controversy. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is right that in case of death of a unmarried person while taking the personal expenses the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards the personal expenses, but it also appears that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence of PW.3 the owner of the vehicle. PW.3 has categorically deposed that the deceased was working as driver and he was paying an amount of Rs.6000/- per month towards salary and also paying Rs.50/- as batta. Of course, in the cross-examination he had admitted that he has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his evidence. A suggestion was given to PW.3 that the deceased did not work with him and he did not pay Rs.6000/- per month which he has denied. The observation of the Tribunal that even a labourer is getting Rs.150/- per day appears to be correct. But, admittedly, the deceased was not a labourer. He was working as a driver. The driver is a technical person. When a labourer is getting Rs.150/- per day in all probabilities and in all fairness it appears that the driver must get more than what a labourer earns. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 requires a fair consideration. Though PW.3 deposed that he was paying Rs.6000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day as batta but taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case and profession of the deceased it appears that including batta if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.6000/- per month the same may meet the ends of justice. If we take the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month and even after deducting 50% towards his personal expenses the loss of monthly contribution comes to Rs.3000/- i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum which is the figure arrived at by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd from the annual calculated income of Rs.54,000/-. In view of the same, though the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted as correct but the ultimate figure reached by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable and no interference is required in the matter. In view of the same, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed by the Tribunal in all respects. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 09.02.2011. Nsr