THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY MACMA NOS.3359 OF 2008 AND 3896 OF 2009 29th January, 2010. BETWEEN: MACMA.NO.3359 OF 2008 J.ANJI REDDY AND ANOTHER .. APPELLANTS AND PERLA SATHAIAH AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS MACMA.NO.3896 OF 2009 M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD…. APPELLANT AND J.ANJI REDDY AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY MACMA NOS.3359 OF 2008 AND 3896 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. These two appeals are directed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 18-9-2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.474 of 2005 on the file of Chairman Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby and where under the learned Chairman allowed the O.P. filed under section 163-A and Schedule II of M.V. (Amendment) Act, 1994 and granted compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- with interest thereon @ 7.5 per cent from the date of petition. 2. One J.Sampath Reddy was proceeding on a cycle towards Bhongir to attend Junior College at Jagadevpur on 8.12.2003 at 11.15 a.m. On reaching Hari Shanker Binni Rice Mill, a tractor and trailor bearing Nos.AP 23A 4602 and AP 23A 4603 came in a high speed and dashed him. As a result he fell down and received grievous injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Gajwel for treatment and thereafter to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. He, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on 9.12.2003. Police registered a case against the driver of the tractor and trailor in Cr.No.55 of 2003. G.Anji Reddy and G.Anjamma, who are parents of the deceased, filed MVOP.No.474 of 2005 on the file of Chairman Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs. According to them, the deceased was a student of intermediate and was giving tuitions at home to primary and high school students and thereby he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. They also pleaded that the deceased was attending to agricultural work in leisure time and helping them. The owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The insurer filed counter resisting the claim. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred owing to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No.AP 23A 4602 and Trailor bearing No.AP 23A 4603; 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and against whom; 3) To what relief. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and 10 documents were exhibited as Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the insurer, a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. Learned Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and the trailor and that the owner of the tractor and trailor and its insurer are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- with proportionate costs and future interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition to the date of deposit by the order impugned in these appeals. The insurer filed MACMA.No.3896 of 2009 questioning the grant of compensation to the claimants and whereas the claimants filed MACMA.No.3359 of 2008 dissatisfied with the quantum of amount of compensation granted to them. 3. Since these two appeals arise out of the same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in M.A.C.M.A.NO.3896 OF 2009. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for R1 and R2/claimants. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed error in not deducting one third of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and therefore the same is required to be deducted out of total compensation arrived at. According to him, an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted out of the total compensation awarded i.e. Rs.2,35,000/-. He also submits that the maximum amount allowed under II schedule towards funeral expenses is Rs.2,000/- and towards loss of estate is Rs.2,500/- and whereas the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same is required to be reduced in tune with Schedule Ii of the M.V. Act, 1988. 7. Learned counsel appearing for R1 and R2/claimants submits that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and the same is required to be taken into account for arriving at the loss of dependency and in which case the compensation granted by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced accordingly. He would also submit that claimant No.2 was aged 38 years as on the date of accident and therefore the proper multiplier would be 16 as per II Schedule appended to M.V.Act, 1988. 8. The question that falls for consideration in these two appeals is – what is the quantum of amount, which the claimants are entitled as compensation for the death of their son in the road accident occurred on 8.12.2003? 9. There is no dispute with regard to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle. There is also no dispute with regard to the relationship between the claimants and the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and was contributing his entire earnings to him. Claimant No.1 got himself examined as P.W.1. He did not place on record any material to speak of the earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The tribunal having considered the fact that the deceased was only a student proceeded to take his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum as provided in Cl.6 of II Schedule of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. I do not see any reason to find fault with the Tribunal in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is well settled that 1/3rd of the income is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive. Therefore, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants can be arrived at Rs.10,000/-. Considering the age of the claimant No.2, the proper multiplier as per II Schedule is 16. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,000/- x 16= Rs.1,60,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. In all the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,64,500/-. As per the order passed by the Tribunal, the compensation amount is required to be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years. Since three years period has been elapsed as on this day there cannot be any impediment in permitting them to withdraw the compensation. 10. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified reducing the total compensation from Rs.2,35,000/- to Rs.1,64,500/- with interest thereon at 7.5 % from the date of petition to the date of deposition, and the same is to be apportioned amongst the claimants equally. 11. In the result, MACMA.No.3896 of 2009 is allowed in part as indicated above and MACMA.No.3359 of 2008 is dismissed. No costs. 29th January, 2010. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY MACMA NOS.3359 OF 2008 AND 3896 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT 29th January 2010.