THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 3368 of 2003 Date: 25-02-2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Regional Officer, Snehalatha Building, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. …..Appellant And Smt. Rani Alias Raja Beti & others. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3368 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 27.3.2003 passed in M.V.O.P.No.929 of 1998 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners No.2, 3 and 6 minor children and petitioners No.4 and 5 are parents of the deceased. The deceased was doing business in purchasing and selling of goats. On 22.5.1998 at about 5.30 a.m., when deceased along with his father and others were proceeding in a lorry bearing No.MP 15-G-168 from Banapur towards Hyderabad for sale of goats, the driver of the lorry drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and the driver has lost control over the lorry and it turned turtle, fell into a culvert, resulting death of the deceased. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A-1 to A-14 marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, but the copy of Insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1. The lower Court, after considering the entire material placed before it and after hearing the learned counsel on either side, allowed the claim petition filed by the dependants of the deceased and awarded an amount of Rs.7 lakhs towards compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant- insurance company filed this appeal seeking reduction of the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Tribunal ought to have noted that the deceased travelled in goods vehicle as an unauthorised passenger and that the policy issued under the M.V. Act by the insurance company, does not cover the risk of the passengers and the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim against the insurance company as the lorry was insured with the appellant is meant for transport of goods and the passengers are not allowed to travel and therefore, the risk of passengers is not covered by the insurance company. He further urged that the claim for Rs.2,25,000/- towards value of goats killed in the accident is concerned, living goats cannot be pleaded as goods and hence policy Ex.B1 issued by respondent No.2 does not cover any liability for the loss of such goats and that the Tribunal ought to have disallowed the claim of Rs.2,25,000/- towards value of goats. He also urged that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the deceased income at Rs.5,000/- per month by applying multiplier 18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier by taking into consideration the income of the deceased and also urged that the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased is owner of the goats and therefore, the findings of the Tribunal is sustainable. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable or not? Insurance company-appellant herein took a plea that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger, travelling in a goods vehicle and the policy does not cover the risk of passengers and therefore, it does not liable to pay compensation. It is the plea of the respondents in the Tribunal below that the deceased as well as P.W.1 (father of deceased) were travelling in the lorry as owner of the goods, i.e., goats and in fact, the goats are bring transported from Banapur of Uttar Pradesh to Hyderabad. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaroopa[1]. It is an admitted fact that P.W.1 and the deceased are father and son. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased is also doing business along with him. On the fateful day, when the deceased, P.W.1 and two others along with goats were travelling in the offending vehicle, it met with an accident resulting the death of the deceased and the driver of the vehicle who died on the spot. His evidence on this aspect remained unchallenged. The evidence of PW1, who is an eye witness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet is not controverted by the respondents in the Tribunal. Therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal on that score holds good. Insofar as the claim of Rs.2,25,000/- towards value of goats killed in that accident is concerned, the goats cannot be considered as goods and hence, policy under Ex.B1 issued by respondent No.1 does not cover any liability for loss of goats. Regarding the quantum of compensation, it is stated by P.W.1, the father of the deceased, that the deceased is also doing business along with him by the time of accident. The income of the deceased as claimed by the petitioners before the Tribunal is at Rs.7,500/- per month. To prove the said fact, no documentary evidence was placed on record. However, the Tribunal while taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 29, assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is just and reasonable. The Tribunal basing on Ex.A7-driving licence of the deceased came to the conclusion that the deceased must be aged 29 years and applied the multiplier 18 as per the schedule of the Act. But, as per latest decision of the Apex Court in Sarala Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2] case, the relevant multiplier for the age of 29 is 17. The Tribunal by applying multiplier 18, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, by deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, arrived the loss of dependency as Rs.7,20,000/-. But, if the multiplier 17 is applied, as per Sarla Varma’s case (1 supra), there is slight variation in the total amount of compensation granted. At para 13 of the Judgment of the Tribunal, it is noted that Ex.A9 receipts were produced towards cost of purchase of goats at Rs.2,32,975/-, but, absolutely, there is no evidence to show that how many goats were died in the accident. The Tribunal rightly rejected the said claim on the ground that living goats cannot be pleaded as goods. Further, the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- by the petitioners is inclusive of Rs.2,25,000/- towards value of the goats. The petitioners claimed only Rs.4,75,000/- as compensation for the loss of life of the deceased. But, while calculating the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- by applying multiplier 18, the amount of compensation is assessed at Rs.7,25,000/-, but restricted to Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal in detail assigned reasons for awarding compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. Therefore, I see no legal infirmity and material irregularity in the impugned order and hence the compensation awarded to the petitioners is justified with good reasoning and thereby the Award of the Tribunal is ustainable. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO February 15, 2011. Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 3368 of 2003 DATE: 25.02.2011 [1] AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2472 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298