IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.269 of 2000 Between: Chunchu Yakaiah and another .. Appellants AND K. Prabhakar and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.238 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated 07-08-1992. Chunchu Sattaiah, aged about 14 years, and studying 5th class, was standing by the side of the road in front of his house on 05-07-1990 at about 4 P.M. Tractor and trailor Nos. ATO 1063 and ATO 1064 loaded with paddy came that way and the tractor driver dashed Sattaiah, who received multiple injuries all over the body and died instantaneously. As the boy died due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, the parents claimed a compensation of Rs.60,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor. The insurer alone contested the claim denying the existence of a valid insurance policy at the relevant time or the tractor driver holding a valid driving licence and put the petitioners to strict proof of their allegations. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 during the enquiry. The insurer did not produce any evidence. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly referring to the evidence of the mother of the deceased as P.W.1 and an eye witness as P.W.2 about the manner of the accident and in the absence of any contrary evidence for the respondents, the claims of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the accident being caused due to the negligence of the tractor driver were accepted. The Tribunal considered the petitioners to be entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and further considered the petitioners to be not entitled to claim Rs.25,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal considered the petitioners to be eligible for compensation only under ‘no fault’ liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as the insurance policy number was specified by the petitioners, which was not contradicted by the insurer, the Tribunal made all the three respondents jointly and severally liable for payment of the said sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The claimants preferred the present appeal contending that the entire compensation of Rs.60,000/- should have been awarded on the evidence showing that the deceased boy was a brilliant student and his death subjected the parents to severe shock and agony apart from their losing the only source of future maintenance. The loss of love and affection and other permissible heads of damages were not considered and hence, the appellants desired the impugned award to be reversed and the entire claim to be accepted. Sri B. Muralidhar, learned counsel representing Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Siva Prasad, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent are heard. None appeared for the 2nd respondent, while the appeal stood dismissed for default against the 1st respondent vide the orders of this Court, dated 06-04-1999. In so far as the finding of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the tractor being the cause for the accident is concerned, the same was not challenged by any party to the case and it had become final. Similarly, the finding of the Tribunal about the subsistence of a valid insurance policy at the relevant time was also not challenged in any manner and therefore, the joint and several liability of respondents 1 to 3 to justly and adequately compensate the petitioners/appellants is beyond doubt. When the accident was proved before the Tribunal to be due to the fault of the driver of the tractor, the fault liability of the respondents ought to have been assessed by the Tribunal without falling back upon the ‘no fault’ liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. With reference to the assessment of the compensation in such cases, the learned counsel for the appellants referred to Manju Devi and another v. Musafir Paswan and another[1], in which case also the death of a boy of 13 years was under consideration of the Apex Court and the Apex Court held that even the non-earning boy would have been considered to be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a multiplier of 15 should have been applied in respect of the boy. The Apex Court awarded a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest on such calculation and laid down that the award of compensation had to be made by multiplier method alone. If the principle laid down by the Apex court were to be applied to the facts of the present case, there cannot be any doubt that the appellants will be entitled to much more than the entire compensation of Rs.60,000/- claimed by them before the Tribunal. They did not make any request for considering any higher compensation since the filing of the claim before the Tribunal till now and the parents should have been also justly and adequately compensated under different other heads of damages, pecuniary and non-pecuniary. As rightly contended by them, the mental shock and agony, loss of love and affection, loss of future support and other heads of account also could have been considered, but no further elaboration on such aspects becomes necessary in the light of the appellants’ entitlement to the compensation claimed with reference to the calculation of the compensation by multiplier method under which they would have been entitled to much more than what they claimed. While the compensation should, therefore, be enhanced to Rs.60,000/-, in view of the distance of time for which interest has to be paid on enhanced portion of compensation from 1990 till now, such interest can be confined to 6 per cent per annum, while the appellants should be entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced portion of the compensation also. In the result, the appeal is allowed without costs and the award in Original Petition No.238 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated 07-08-1992 is modified by enhancing the compensation by Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition i.e. 01-08-1990 till realization and proportionate costs thereon in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-08-2010 Svv [1] 2005 ACJ 99