IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1606 & 2201 of 200 C.M.A.No.1606 of 2001: Between: B.V.Nageswarachari and others …Appellants AND Yelamanchili Narasinga Rao and others …Respondent C.M.A.No.2201 of 2001 Between: B.V.Nageswarachari …Appellant AND Yelamanchili Narasinga Rao and others …Respondents The Court made the following common: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 1606 & 2201 of 200 COMMON JUDGMENT: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1606 of 2001 is preferred against the order dated 01.02.2001 made in O.P.No.807 of 1997 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2201 of 2001 is preferred against the order dated 01.02.2001 made in O.P.No.95 of 1998. The learned IV Additional District Judge – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) passed a common award in both the O.P.s, both the claims arise out of the same accident and as such, these two appeals are also being disposed of by the following common judgment. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent – United India Insurance Company Limited. The brief facts necessary for considering both the appeals may be stated as follows:- On 29.06.1997, at about 08:00 p.m., while one Bondada Nagamani and one Bondada Vijaya Nageswarachari were waiting at the Chinagantyada bus stop to board the bus, an auto bearing registration No.AP 31 T 2465, being driven by the ﬁrst respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against them. They received serious injuries and were shifted to K.G.Hospital for treatment. Bondada Nagamani succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Bondada Vijaya Nageswarachari, who received fracture to the left frontal bone and bleeding injuries all over the body, was treated for the said injuries. Thereafter, the Legal Representatives of Bondada Nagamani ﬁled M.O.P.No.807 of 1997 whereas the injured Bondada Vijaya Nageswarachari ﬁled M.O.P.No.95 of 1998 before the Tribunal claiming compensation. By its common award, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- to the Legal Representatives of Bondada Nagamani in M.O.P.No.807 of 1997 and Rs.7,000/- in respect of injuries to Bondada Vijaya Nageswarachari in M.O.P.No.95 of 1998. The learned Tribunal also gave a categorical ﬁnding that the third respondent – Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as the driver of the oﬀending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident. These two appeals have been preferred questioning the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is inadequate and also assailing the ﬁnding that the third respondent – Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Let us ﬁrst examine the correctness of the ﬁnding of the learned Tribunal, which is to the eﬀect that the third respondent – Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, the license possessed by the ﬁrst respondent who was driving the oﬀending vehicle at relevant time, was expired on 14.01.1997. However, it was renewed on 15.09.1997 whereas the accident occurred on 29.06.1997. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, placing reliance on the judgment reported in National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Swaran Singh and others[1], argued that since it is not the case of the third respondent – Insurance Company as to whether the driver of the oﬀending vehicle is in possession of a valid driving license or not and since the same cannot be considered to be a fundamental requirement, the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the third respondent – Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent – Insurance Company, relying on the judgment reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Kusum Rai and others[2], contended that since the driver of the oﬀending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving license on the date of accident, the Tribunal is perfectly justiﬁed in holding that the third respondent – Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In Kusum Rai supra, the Apex Court, referring to several other judgments on this subject including Swaran Singh supra, held that as the driver therein had license to drive light motor vehicle but was driving a jeep which was being plied as a taxi, a commercial vehicle, it amounted to breach of conditions of contract of insurance and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In the instant case, the driving license of the driver of the oﬀending vehicle was expired on 14.01.1997. As per relevant provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for brevity), he has to apply for renewal of the driving license as soon as his driving license expires. But he did not renew the license soon after it expired and it was renewed only on 15.09.1997 i.e. after the occurrence of the accident and which is long after the expiry of the driving license. Therefore, it can be said without any sort of hesitation that this is a case where the driver of the oﬀending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving license as on the date of accident and it amounts to violation of stipulations contained in the policy. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal did not commit any error in exonerating the third respondent from paying compensation to the claimants / appellants. However, the Apex Court, in Swaran Singh supra as well as in Kusum Rai supra, held that it will be very difficult for the claimants to recover the amount from the owner of the oﬀending vehicle in a situation where the Insurance Company is exempted from its liability to pay compensation, more particularly for the claimants hailing from a poor family background. The Apex Court said that it would be inappropriate to push the claimants into another round of litigation, particularly when it is diﬃcult to secure the presence of persons. Accordingly, the Apex Court issued directions to the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount to the claimants in the ﬁrst instance and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In the instant case also, the appellants / claimants hail from a poor family background and at this point of time, it will be very diﬃcult for them to secure the presence of the owner of the oﬀending vehicle. Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in both the cases mentioned supra, the third respondent – Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation amount awarded to the claimants in the ﬁrst instance and then to recover the same from the owner of the oﬀending vehicle who is liable to pay compensation, without filing any separate suit. The conclusion, therefore, is that the third respondent – Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. However, it has to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants / claimants in the ﬁrst instance and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The other aspect that requires consideration in these two appeals is the quantum of compensation. In C.M.A.No.1606 of 2001, the deceased – Bondada Nagamani is a housewife and she was aged 35 years at the time of accident. The claimants are the husband and children of the deceased. Total claim of compensation is Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of Bondada Nagamani. Learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- and the quantum of compensation is challenged by the appellants in this appeal on the ground that it is inadequate. Learned Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the deceased, who was a housewife, might be contributing a net amount of Rs.5,000/- to her family members, adopted multiplier 14.5 and awarded the above amount of compensation mentioned supra. In my view, ﬁxing the contribution of deceased to her family at Rs.5,000/- by the learned Tribunal is very low. Even when the deceased is considered to be a housewife, her monthly income, which can be calculated basing upon the services rendered by her to the family, can be ﬁxed at Rs.1,800/- per month. If 1/3rd is deducted towards her personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.1,200/- per month and Rs.14,400/- per annum {Rs.1,200/- x 12}. The appropriate multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased (35 years) is 16. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,30,400/-. The ﬁrst appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,50,400/-. The Tribunal already awarded Rs.1,05,000/-. Hence, the appellants in C.M.A.No.1606 of 2001 are entitled for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,45,400/- {Rs.2,50,400/- – Rs.1,05,000/-} . The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,45,400/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of resalisation. Coming to the quantum of compensation in C.M.A.No.2201 of 2001, the appellant, who is injured in the accident and who is said to be an employee of Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam, only ﬁled Ex.A.5 – Wound Certiﬁcate from which, it appears that he received a head injury. Neither he examined the doctor nor it is mentioned in the Wound Certiﬁcate that the injury sustained by him is a grievous one. There is also no evidence to show that the appellant sustained any permanent disability or any loss of income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly compensated the appellant for the simple injury sustained by him, pain and suﬀering and medical expenses. Thus, the amount of Rs.7,000/- so awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not require any enhancement. For the foregoing reasons and with the above ﬁndings, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1606 of 2001 is partly allowed and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2201of 2001 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO April 09, 2010 Bvv [1] 2004 ACJ 1 [2] 2006 ACJ 1336