IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Dated this 8th day of October , 2010. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy C.M.A.Nos. 548; 645; 650; 742; 1034 and 2145 of 2003 Between: Kodisala Raj Kumar and others ..Petitioners And M/s. Safe Drive Carraiers Pvt. Ltd., 18, Muktaram Bagu street, Calcutta 7, West Bengal and others. ..Respondents PSR, J. C.M.A.Nos. 548; 645; 650; 742; 1034 and 2145 of 2003 Common Judgment CMA.Nos. 548; 645; 650; 1034 of 2003 are filed aggrieved by the orders of dismissal of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nalgonda in O.P.No.350; 351; 348 and 349 of 2001; whereas CMA.No.742 of 2003 is filed by the very same petitioner against the orders in O.P.No. 352 of 2001 seeking enhancement of compensation. All these appeals are filed by the sole petitioner/ appellant – Kodisala Raj Kumar. 2. Facts of the case are that: on 20.6.2001, the deceased persons in all the above claim petitions, along with others, were going towards Hyderabad in Auto bearing No. AP-28U-705 and when it reached outskirts of Choutuppal village, lorry bearing No.WB-15- 6502 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Auto, as a result of which all deceased persons died. 3. The first respondent is the driver and second respondent is the owner of the lorry. In all the claim petitions, the driver remained ex parte and the second respondent filed its counter denying the petition averments. 4. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial court framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. WB-15-6502? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount? iii) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioners in all the above OPS and OP. 347 and 417 of 2001, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs A-1 to A21 were marked. On behalf of respondents, Ex B-1 copy of the policy was marked. 6. The trial court dismissed – O.P.Nos. 348; 349; 350 and 351 of 2001 (CMA.Nos.650; 1034; 548 and 645 of 2003). In O.P.No.352 of 2001 (CMA.N.742 of 2003) compensation of Rs.77,400-00 was granted, as against the claim of Rs.2.00 Lakhs, for the death of the mother of the claimant, Smt. K. Sakku Bai. 7. In O.P.No. 350 of 2001, the deceased was the sixteen years old sister; O.P.No.351 of 2001 the deceased was eighteen years old brother; O.P.No.348 of 2001 the deceased was fifteen years old another brother and in O.P.No. 349 of 2001, the deceased was 17 years old another sister; whereas in O.P.No.352 of 2001, the deceased was forty years old mother of the petitioner, Kodisela Raj Kumar. In OP.Nos. 350; 351; 348 and 349 of 2001 compensation of Rs.1.50 Lakhs each was claimed; whereas in O.P.No.352 of 2001 compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakhs was claimed. 8. The evidence revealed that the accident as narrated by PW-2 has taken place. The trial court dismissed O.P.Nos.348, 349, 351 and 341 of 2001 holding the claim petitioner was aged 21 years and therefore it cannot be said that he was dependent on the deceased brothers and sisters. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether in all the above Ops, the claimant can be granted any compensation? If so to what amount in each case. 10. There is no dispute that the deceased in O.P.Nos. 348, 349, 350 and 351 of 2003 are the siblings of the claim petitioner. In such circumstances whether compensation cannot be granted holding that as the claimant is the major brother, he is not entitled compensation. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision of our High Court Bontu Venkata Rao v. Kalla Venkataramana[1] wherein it was held that even if wife of the claimant died in the accident, husband and children of the deceased cannot claim compensation, as dependents of the deceased and only husband can claim compensation on the ground of loss of consortium”. In this decision, it was held that even if the wife is said to have been working, the husband will not become dependent on wife. Having regard to the society wherein the deceased and the claimant used to reside the legal obligation is cast upon the husband to maintain his own family; but not on the wife to maintain the husband and her children. In case of minor children, the minor becomes the dependent of the father, but not of the mother. The mother has no legal obligation to maintain the children unlike the father. As such the assessment of compensation on the basis of the dependent is quite unexpected. It was further held “as the wife of the claimant died in a motor accident, the damage sustained by the family in consequence thereof cannot be denied. The death was on account of the tortuous act on the part driver of the offending vehicle. The claim for compensation is based both on the basis of civil wrong and also on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, there can be no dispute that a person who is responsible for the tortuous act and the person who is vicariously liable being the owner of the vehicle for the tortuous act of the driver cannot escape the liability to pay the necessary damages.” Thus in the above decision ultimately it was held that compensation payable may not be as dependents. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hafizun Begum v. Md. Ikram Heque[2]. In paragraph-8 of the above judgment, it was held that “in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all are any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition.” 13. In another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.[3], it was held that “a married daughter of the deceased, though not dependent on the deceased, is entitled for compensation as legal representative”. 14. Now coming to the case on hand, even assuming that the claim petitioner is not dependent on the deceased. He is entitled for compensation, as a legal representative, in view of the undisputed fact that he is the brother of the deceased and as such it has to be held that he is entitled for compensation. 15. Now coming to the question of quantum in each case, the deceased in all the cases are shown to be aged 15, 16, 17 and 18 years, i.e., with a gap of one year; whereas the petitioner is shown to be aged 21 years, with a gap of three years. There is no authentic evidence with regard to the ages of the deceased persons. Exaggeration of the ages, for claiming higher compensation can obviously be presumed. In such circumstances, all the deceased can be said to be aged less than what is mentioned in the claim petition. Thus, all of them might be of tender age of 10 – 12 years. As such, in all probability, they were not earning and by the time they start earning, they would not have contributed their income to the claimant. In such circumstances, granting compensation of Rs.50,000-00 (Rs. Fifty thousands only), under no fault liability is sufficient. As such it is held that in all the four petitions (O.P.Nos.348; 349; 350 and 351 of 2001 – CMA.Nos.650; 1034; 548 and 645 of 2003) the claimant is entitled for compensation @ Rs.50,000-00 (Totalling to Rs. 2.00 Lakhs only) in each case with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of payment. 16. As the claimant is one and the same in all the petitions, he is entitled to withdraw the compensation awarded in O.P.No. 348 of 2001 as and when deposited; the amount awarded in O.P.No. 349 of 2001 one year there after; the amount awarded in O.P.No. 350 of 2001 one after payment of the amount in OP.No. 349 of 2001 and the amount in O.P.No. 351 of 2001, one year after the payment of the amount awarded in O.P.No. 350 of 2001. 17. Coming to the awarding of quantum of compensation in O.P.No. 352 of 2001 – CMA.No. 742 of 2003 – against the claim of Rs.2.00 Lakhs an amount of Rs.77,400-00 was awarded. The lower tribunal observed that the deceased was said to be a private employee earning Rs.50-00 per day. The evidence of PW-4 does not reveal the employment of the deceased. As such the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.600-00 per month as labourer and the annual contribution to the family at Rs.400.00 x 12 = Rs.4,800-00. The age of the deceased is shown as (38) years. As such if multiplier “13” is applied the dependency works out at Rs.62,400-00 and Rs.15,000-00 is awarded towards non-pecuniary damages. Even accepting that the income of the deceased was Rs.600-00 per month, in view of the possibility of enhancement of income in future at least, 25% has to be added to it and it comes to Rs.750-00 per month, out of which if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses; Rs.500-00 per month has to be taken towards contribution to the family, which comes to Rs.6,000-00 per annum and multiplier “13” is applied it comes to Rs.78,000-00 and Rs.15,000-00 is added towards non-pecuniary damages, it comes to Rs.93,000-00, as the income is taken at Rs.600-00 per moth, which is very low, in all compensation can be rounded of to Rs.1.00 Lakh. Therefore it is held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh in O.P.No.352 of 2001 (C.M.A.No.742 of 2003). Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.77,400-00 to Rs.1.00Lakh. On the enhanced compensation the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum. The compensation shall be paid to the claimant, as and when deposited as in other cases the amount awarded is directed to be kept in fixed deposit. 18. C.M.A.No.2145 of 2003: This appeal is directed against the order in O.P.No. 417 of 2001, claiming compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakhs for the death of Rajamma, aged 50 years. As against the claim of Rs.2.00 Lakhs the tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs.50,000-00, holding that the deceased was a private employee for a short period; all the petitioners are majors and they themselves are earning. There is no material on record to show that the petitioners are earning. Still, on what basis, Rs.50,000-00 is fixed as compensation is not clearly mentioned in the order, as to whether it was a case under no fault liability.. If the same standard as in O.P.No.352 of 2001 is applied, the contribution to the family can be taken to be at Rs.750-00 per month; by deducting 1/3 for personal expenses, Rs.600-00 can be taken as the contribution to be the family and multiplier “13“ is applied the dependency would come to Rs.600x13=Rs.78,000-00 and Rs.15,000-00 is awarded towards non-pecuniary damages, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.93,000-00, which can be rounded of to Rs.1.00 Lakh. Thus the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1.00 Lakh from Rs.50,000-00 awarded by the lower tribunal. They shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the amount enhanced. The amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners, as ordered by the trial court. 19. Accordingly the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated. The appellant petitioners are entitled to proportionate costs. ________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:08-10-2010 *BVS [1] 2003 (3) ALD 314 [2] 2007 (9) SCALE 331 [3] AIR 2007 SC 1474