THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.2836 of 2004 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment and decree made in M.V.O.P.No.968 of 2001 dated 24.5.2004 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Kurnool. Appellant is United India Insurance Company Limited and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are parents of the victim Syed Shafi Ahmed, who died in the accident and respondent No.3 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the O.P. The case of the claimants is that on 6.2.2001 evening, the deceased Syed Shafi Ahmed along with one K.Abdul Bari of Kurnool, while returning to Kurnool from Yerravally village on Scooter bearing No.AP-21-C-7424, at about 8.30 p.m. near Alampur cross roads on N.H.7 road, on the request of the pillion K.Abdul Bari to attend nature call, has taken the Scooter to right side of the road by showing signal, suddenly one tanker bearing No.TN-28-B-9979, came in opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the signal given by the deceased, dashed the scooter, as a result of which, deceased and the pillion rider K.Abdul Bari received injuries and the deceased died within few hours of the accident in the hospital. According to the claimants, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker only. The deceased was aged 22 years and was drawing a salary of Rs.3,669/- as a Police Constable working in Orvakal Police Station. Had he not met with accident, he would have got promotions in the near future as he had good opportunities to get promotion. Even otherwise, his monthly emoluments would have been increased since he would have earned increments and other pay revision benefits from time to time. He was contributing his income to the petitioners. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, petitioners are leading a very miserable life in all aspects having lost the earnings and company of the deceased. The first respondent, being the owner of the Tanker bearing No.TN-28-B- 9979 and the second respondent being the Insurer of the said tanker, are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioners. The first respondent, did not choose to contest the matter and hence he was set ex parte as per the order dated 28.1.2002. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition regarding the manner of accident, age, occupation and earnings of the deceased and also the dependency of petitioners on the earnings of the deceased and further stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased Syed Shafi Ahmed alone, who was driving the Scooter No.AP-21-C-7424 at the time of accident. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the accident that occurred on 6.2.2001 at about 8.30 p.m. near Alampur cross-roads on N.H.7 road in Mahabubnagar district, which resulted in the death of Syed Shafi Ahmed S/o S.G.Gayub Saheb, was on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tanker bearing No.TN-28-B-9979 by its driver, or whether the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased himself in driving the Scooter bearing No.AP-21-C-7424 alone or both? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Scooter being necessary parties? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the claimed amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-? 4. To what relief? On behalf claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of respondents, the Senior Assistant working in Insurance Company was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the Driver of the Tanker as well as Deceased were equally negligent and therefore the negligence was fixed at 50% each. Insofar as awarding of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that the deceased was a Police Constable and was earning a salary of Rs.3,669/- per month and therefore he is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,56,200/- by applying multiplier ‘15’ and since the negligence is 50:50, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,78,100/- on all counts. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred the present CMA. The learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company strenuously contended that the Tribunal below ought to have seen that the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased alone and there was no negligence on the part of the Driver of the Tanker. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Scooter, who are necessary parties to the case. Further, the Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier ‘15’. The appropriate multiplier in this case is ‘11.5’. Further, the Tribunal taken the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,635/- erroneously, whereas the salary certificate of the deceased shows that he was earning Rs.3,669/- per month. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the award passed by the Tribunal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Insofar as negligence on the part of the Driver of the Tanker is concerned, P.W.3-eye witness has categorically stated that the way and the manner in which the accident occurred shows the fault on the part of the Driver of the Tanker and not Scooterist alone. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the Tanker as well as Scooterist cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal and therefore, the same do not call for any interference by this Court. Insofar as fixing compensation is concerned, admittedly the deceased was a Police Constable and was earning Rs.3669/- per month. He was unmarried and contributing the entire salary to the family. Since the negligence was 50:50, after deducting 50% an amount of Rs.2,78,100/- was awarded as against Rs.5,56,200/-. Therefore, I am of the opinion that on both counts, such fixation of compensation by the Tribunal cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal and the same is highly reasonable and the Tribunal was practical and pragmatic in its approach in giving a finding as to the negligence as well as quantum of compensation. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. The C.M.A. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 11.3.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.2836 of 2004 11.3.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.2836 of 2004 Date: 11th March, 2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool. .. Appellant And S.G.Gayub Saheb & others. .. Respondents