THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.3976 AND 4008 OF 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident and appellant in both the matters is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The United India Insurance Company Limited preferred these appeals questioning its liability for payment of compensation and also quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. Nos.209 and 208 of 1998 respectively vide separate orders dated 04.04.2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Nizamabad. 3. In both the appeals, appellant is insurance company, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are claimants and respondent No.3 is owner of the lorry bearing No.AP25/T-5577 that involved in the accident. 4. The facts are as follows: On 24.10.1997 both the deceased were going in auto bearing No.AP 1/T 2002 from Munipalli towards Nizamabad and when it reached near Chinnapur Gandi at about 1.30 p.m. lorry bearing No.AP 25/T 5577 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto killing both the deceased, who are son and mother. The son Sridhar was aged about one year and his mother Sayavva was aged about 25 years. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs for the death of the mother in O.P.No.209 of 1998 and Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of the son in O.P.No.208 of 1998. 5. Respondent No.2, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal in both the O.Ps.: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation sought for? 2. To what relief the petitioners are entitled to? 7. In O.P. No.209 of 1998, the claimants therein got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B-1 insurance policy was marked. 8. In O.P. No.208 of 1998, the claimants therein got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. 9. Basing on the evidence available on record and after considering the same, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the claimants in O.P.No.209 of 1998, Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants in O.P. No.208 of 1998 against both the respondents making them jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of the same, questioning its liability and quantum of compensation, insurance company preferred these appeals. 10. As far as C.M.A.No.4008 of 2003 preferred against O.P.No.208 of 1998 is concerned, the deceased was aged around one year. As such, granting of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- relaying on the decision in HAJI ZAINULLAH KHAN [1] is totally unjustified. It is a case, where the deceased was a student aged about 14 years. The reference to Schedule II of Act 54 of 1994, which provides that notional income for the purpose of compensation in case of persons that are not earning has to be taken at Rs.15,000/- also cannot be applied in a case of infant of one year. 11. Considering all these circumstances, I hold that granting compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh is more appropriate. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Court below in O.P.No.208 of 1998 is reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The rate of interest also shall be at 7.5% per annum. 12. As far as O.P.No.209 of 1998 out of which C.M.A.No.3976 of 2003 arises, the deceased was mother of the deceased in O.P.No.208 of 1998 and she was aged about 25 years. In a case of persons aged 25 years, as per SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [2] case, appropriate multiplier would be ‘18’. Whatever was the income of the deceased at the time of accident, it would have gone up with passage of time if she was alive and her income can be taken at Rs.100/- per day at least and her services as house wife have also to be considered. 13. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs granted by the court below in O.P.No.209 of 1998 cannot be said to be on higher side and the same is accordingly confirmed. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. 14. Both the appeals are accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 24.12.2010. Rns [1] 1994 ACJ 993(SC) [2] (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121