IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBURARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1519 of 2004 Between: Thaviti Nagamma and others ..... Appellants And Jil Farooks and 2 others …Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in MVOP.No.581 of 1999 dated 25-03-2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur. T. Venkata Narasaiah was travelling in jeep AP 7V 1799 on 8-5-2999 at about 7.00 A.M. and near the old mill at 1 K.M. from Atchampet, the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently on which it turned turtle killing Venkata Narasaiah. Atchampet police registered Crime No.32 of 1999 in respect of the jeep accident which jeep is owned by the 2nd respondent to the claim on getting it transferred from the 1st respondent to the claim and insured with the 3rd respondent. The deceased aged about 35 years was cultivating his own land of Ac.2.50 cents and leased lands of Ac.5.00 cents of T. Venkata Rao and V. Yedukondalu. He was also doing commission business in cotton, mirchi, aparalu and paddy and was earning Rs.15,000/- each from cultivation and commission business. The wife and three daughters of Venkata Narasaiah, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- from the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. While the respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent-insurer denied the allegations of the claimants and contended that there were violations of the conditions of the permit and insurance policy by overloading the jeep with passengers and by entrusting the jeep to a driver without a valid licence. The insurer also contended that the insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the 2nd respondent and hence, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined PWs.1 to 5 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and B.1 to B.6 during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of PW.2, who was also travelling in the jeep, corroborated by Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.5-Charge sheet as probablising the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. The Tribunal also referred to the contention about the non-liability of the insurer due to overloading of the vehicle and with reference to the precedents cited before it, came to the conclusion that the insurer was not relieved of its liability to pay compensation merely due to the carriage of more passengers. The Tribunal referred to the age of the deceased mentioned as 40 years in Ex.A.2-inquest report and Ex.A.3-Post Mortem certificate and the claim of PW.1 that it was 35 years, but considered it just to take the age between 40 and 45 years. The income was taken as Rs.15,000/- p.a. after referring to the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 about their land being taken on lease by the deceased and the evidence of PW.1 about the cultivation of the own land and leased land by the deceased. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.10,000/- per year and applied a multiplier of 13 and apart from the total loss of dependency of Rs.1,30,000/-, it granted Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of estate and loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. On the total compensation of Rs.1,52,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 6% p.a. and proportionate costs. The Tribunal gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The claimants are before this Court being aggrieved about the inadequacy of the compensation and contended that the multiplier under Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act should have been applied taking the age of the deceased as 35 years. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 about the leasehold cultivation and commission business should have been accepted to assess the annual income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/-. The claimants desired enhancement of damages on other counts, as well as increase of interest to 12% p.a. and desired the entire compensation as claimed to be granted. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel representing Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent are heard and none entered appearance for the respondents 1 and 2 before this Court. Insofar as the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the jeep driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, the ownership of the vehicle originally with the 1st respondent and on transfer, with the 2nd respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 3rd respondent are concerned, there was no challenge by any party and the findings have become final. It is only the quantum of just and adequate compensation payable by the owner and insurer of the vehicle that remains to be the issue in this appeal. Insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned, there was no irrefutable evidence like any extract of register of births and deaths or any date of birth based on any academic record and it was only the assessment by the independent panchayatdars under the inquest report-Ex.A.2 and by the medical expert under Ex.A.3- Post Mortem that was available to the Tribunal. Even if the claims of PW.1 about her husband being younger are tainted with interestedness and uncorroborated, there is no reason to reject the independent assessment under Exs.A.2 and A.3 in the absence of any other contradicting material. Hence, the age of the deceased has to be considered as about 40 years by the time of his death based on Exs.A.2 and A.3. Coming to the probable income which he was earning by the time of his death, the deceased, who had to maintain himself, his wife and three minor daughters would have undoubtedly engaged in some useful avocation to discharge that obligation and apart from the certificates issued by the Village Administrative Officer and the Sarpanch and the occupation of the deceased described in the inquest report-Ex.A.2 and the interested evidence of PW.1 herself, there was the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 on this aspect. PW.3 spoke about the lease of Ac.2.00 of his land to the deceased, while PW.4 spoke about the lease of his Ac.3.00 similarly to the deceased. The Sarpanch of the village as PW.3 spoke about the commission business being done by the deceased in cotton, mirchi and aparalu. The Tribunal took into account only Rs.15,000/-p.a. as the probable income for the deceased, which is the quantum of income adopted by the statute even for non-earning persons under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. An earning person would have been earning definitely much more than what was presumed by the statute about 5 years earlier to the accident and even if the claim of an annual income of Rs.30,000/- contained an element of exaggeration, keeping in view even the minimum wages payable to unskilled labrourers at about the relevant time, assessing such income at Rs.2,000/- per month or Rs.24,000/-p.a. will not be an excessive estimate. While as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], in case of a deceased leaving 4 to 6 dependents, the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th, even if 1/3rd of such income were to be deducted as per the earlier convention, the loss of dependency for the claimants would be Rs.16,000/-p.a. For the age of 40 years as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation (stated supra), the appropriate multiplier applicable is 15 and the total loss of dependency, therefore, comes to Rs.2,40,000/-. That apart, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as per the same precedent and the total of the sums would be marginally exceeding the compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- claimed by the claimants. As such, on a reasonably conservative estimate of the just and adequate compensation, the claimants are found entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- claimed by them. The balance of Rs.93,000/- after deducting the compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- already awarded will have to be granted in this appeal with the same rate of interest at 6% p.a. and proportionate costs on the same. In view of the claim by the claimants themselves that the 2nd respondent was the transferee of the jeep by the time of accident and the 3rd respondent was the subsisting insurer, the joint and several liability for the enhanced compensation would be against them. Therefore, the award dated 25-3-2004 in MVOP.No.581 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.93,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award against respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally and the enhanced compensation also shall be shared between the claimants in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be shared. The appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-02-2011 Ksn [1] AIR 2009 ACJ 1298