IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1040 of 2003 Between: Rama Jithender & 2 others .. Appellants AND Seelam Laxmi & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1040 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.747 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated 05.09.2002. 2. Srilatha was working as a Teacher in Zilla Parishad High School, Narsingapuram Village of Kesamudram Mandal and on 24.06.1999 at about 3.00 p.m., when she was returning to her residence from the school in Jeep No.TSG 3969, lorry No.AP 16U 5973, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came in the opposite direction being driven rashly and negligently in high speed and hit the jeep. Srilatha died on the spot and a post mortem was conducted at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. Parvathagiri Police registered Crime No.51 of 1999 against the lorry driver and Srilatha, aged 20 years, was earning Rs.4,500/- per month as salary. The first appellant/husband and appellants 2 and 3/parents were dependent on her and claimed a compensation of Rs.6,79,500/- against both the respondents jointly and severally. 3. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim denying any rash and negligent driving of the lorry and putting the claimants to strict proof of all their allegations. The insurer sought for protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Section 64 of the Insurance Act, 1938. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive and hence, the insurer desired that the claim be dismissed. 4. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 during the course of the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal concluded in the impugned award that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry as proved by Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-3-Charge Sheet. The Tribunal also assessed the compensation on the basis of the deceased’s age as 20 years as stated in Ex.A-2-Post Mortem Report and Ex.A-5-Inquest Panchanama. The Tribunal noted that the husband was a Teacher and the appellants were claimed to have been maintained by the deceased herself. The Salary Certificate-Ex.A-6 was taken on the basis for computing the income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/- per month. Referring to her Appointment Order-Ex.A-7 and the relevant Government Order-Ex.A-8, the Tribunal assessed the compensation on 2/3rds of the monthly income of Rs.1,200/- deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses. Applying the multiplier 16, the Tribunal granted loss of dependency at Rs.1,53,600/-, loss of consortium at Rs.5,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs while directing the apportionment of the compensation between the three petitioners. 6. The claimants were aggrieved by the Tribunal in not computing the salary at Rs.6,000/- per month and in not applying a multiplier of 18. They were also aggrieved by the non-grant of full damages towards loss of consortium, etc. 7. Heard Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. W.V.S. Rajeshwari, learned standing counsel for the second respondent/insurer, while none entered appearance for the owner of the vehicle before this Court also. 8. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident, the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the husband and parents of the deceased and the employment of the deceased as a Teacher are not in dispute and the respondents have not preferred any cross-objections or appeal against the award. 9. The only question that remains for consideration is, therefore, the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. 10. The conclusion of the Tribunal that the deceased was aged 20 years with reference to Ex.A-5-Inquest Panchanama and Ex.A-2-Post Mortem Report in the absence of any contrary evidence is but reasonable. The employment of the deceased as a Teacher is not in dispute and Ex.A-7-Appointment Order shows that though she was directly recruited to the post of a Teacher by a duly constituted District Selection Committee, her initial appointment was purely temporary as an apprentice for a period of two years for a monthly salary of Rs.1,200/- during the first year and Rs.1,500/- during the second year. Ex.A-8-copy of G.O.Ms.No.238.Edn., dated 28.07.1994, refers to the initial appointment being as an apprentice for a period of two years for a consolidated monthly payment of stipend and neither of the two documents suggest the possibility of taking the employment of the deceased as a permanent or regular appointment and even Ex.A-6-Salary Certificate also specifies the payment of salary to be on stipendiary basis and, therefore, the claim of the appellants for addition to income for future prospects as laid down in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] at 50% of the actual salary cannot be upheld as the Apex Court extended such benefit only when the deceased had a permanent job. 11. However, the deceased had a definite prospect of receiving Rs.1,500/- per month as stipend/consolidated amount on completion of one year of service and Ex.A-7 may suggest that being a duly recruited direct recruit, the likelihood of the deceased continuing as such irrespective of regularization of the services in due course or not, is quite probable. The Tribunal could have, therefore, taken the loss of dependency on the basis of monthly earnings of Rs.1,500/- instead of Rs.1,200/-. 12. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of 20 years is 18 as per SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1) and if 1/3rd of her monthly earnings of Rs.1,500/- were to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses and the balance were to be construed as the loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.2,16,000/-. In addition, as per the above decision, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses apart from the husband being entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. While the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,60,600/-, the claimants would have been entitled to Rs.2,36,000/- on the above assessment and hence, there should be an enhancement of Rs.75,400/-. In view of the length of time for which interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same may be confined to 6% per annum while proportionate costs also shall follow suit. 13. In the result, the award, dated 05.09.2002, in M.V.O.P.No.747 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.75,400/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The first claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- out of the enhanced compensation towards loss of consortium and the claimants 1 to 3 shall share the remaining enhanced compensation in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be apportioned between them by the impugned award. 14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1040 of 2003 Date: 17th February, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298