HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 3279, 3282, 3283, 3508 AND 3518 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these appeals arise out of a common accident, which was happened on 07.03.2001 at about 2:00 PM. 2. The case of the claimants is that on 07.03.2001 when they were going in a Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 37 L 786 from Jagtial to Tirupathi and reached near Singarayakonda, a lorry bearing No. AP 13 T 4478 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tata Sumo, as a result of which, the inmates of the TATA Sumo received injuries and two persons died. 3. Respondent No.1, who is the driver of the lorry, Respondent No.2, who is the owner of the lorry, Respondent No.4, who is the driver of the TATA Sumo remained ex parte in the lower Tribunal. Respondent No.5, who is the owner of the TATA Sumo did not file the counter and Respondent No.6, who is the insurer of the TATA Sumo filed counter contended that the accident was occurred due to the composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and therefore, there is no liability exclusively on the part of the insurance company, which was disputed by the 6th respondent, who is the insurer of the TATA Sumo. After taking evidence on record, the Tribunal has accepted the claims and granted compensation of Rs.5,63,160/- in M.V.O.P.No.43 of 2004, Rs.54,500/- in O.P.No.42 of 2004, Rs.1,30,415/- in O.P.No.45 of 2004, Rs.1,00,000/- in O.P.No.46 of 2004, Rs.65,000/- in O.P.No.44 of 2004. Aggrieved by the said awards, the present appeals are filed. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether there is composite negligence and contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry? 2) Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that except the interested statements of the injured persons, there is no other evidence to prove the nature of incident and only Xerox copy of Ex.A.4-Motor Vehicle Report was filed and the lower Tribunal has not properly appreciated the factum of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. 6. Evidently, so far as the claim with regard to the injured persons are concerned, the persons who travelled in the vehicles are the best persons to say the manner of the accident and therefore, their evidence cannot be excluded. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when there is no other evidence on the side of the appellant, it is not reasonable to infer that the incident happened due to the fault of driver of TATA Sumo. Furthermore, the First Information Report is also said to have been registered against the driver of the lorry only. Therefore, the reliance placed by the lower Tribunal on the evidence of the persons travelled in the TATA Sumo and also the injured persons cannot be said to be not legal. Therefore, the claim of the appellant with regard to the nature of the incident and the contributory negligence is not proved and it cannot be accepted. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also disputed the quantum of compensation pertaining to the claims in M.A.C.M.A Nos. 3282 and 3279 of 2011 have been excessive. In O.P.No.43 of 2004 pertaining to M.A.C.M.A No. 3282 of 2011, they claimed compensation consequent on the death of the wife of the first petitioner and mother of other petitioners. According to them, prior to the death the deceased she was working as an Agent for collecting deposits under postal savings scheme and reliance was placed on Ex.A.6-Certificate, which was said to have been issued about the commission given to her and the lower Tribunal has fixed the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. Out of which 1/3rd has to be deducted towards her personal expenses and fixed the monthly income at Rs.3000/- per month towards contribution to the family. It is not in dispute that even in cases where a housewife dies, the notional income of her contribution is to be fixed at Rs.3000/- per month. In this case, particularly when the deceased was said to be having some nature of employment and earning capacity, I feel the discretion exercised by the lower Tribunal in fixing the income at Rs.4,500/- per month cannot be said to be erroneous and particularly when there are two minor children, who are son and daughter of the deceased. 8. So far as the applicability of multiplier is concerned, there is no dispute. But, however, as can be seen from the award the Tribunal, has granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, which is highly excessive. But however, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of consortium. I feel the ends of justice would meet if an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium and an amount of Rs.5000/- is granted towards non- pecuniary damages since first petitioner is an employee working as L.I.C Agent. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is modified to that extent and compensation is reduced to Rs.5,48,160/-. 9. Accordingly, the appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.3282 of 2011 is allowed in part. Taking into consideration the quantum of compensation awarded, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in M.A.C.M.A.No.3279 of 2011 (O.P.No.45 of 2004) the lower Tribunal has granted total compensation of Rs.1,30,415/-, in which the medical expenses and pain and suffering are excessive. He also claimed that transportation charges and loss of future earnings are not based on the evidence and they have to be interfered. 11. Evidently, in this case, the evidence on record shows that the award of the lower Tribunal does not show as to what is the nature of the injuries that have been opined by the Doctor. The claimant was in hospital for treatment for brain injury, ribs and right clavicle and it can be taken that there are only three injuries. She was said to be in hospital for one month. The nature of the injuries whether they are being grievous or otherwise, the evidence of P.W.2 is not clear and on the other hand, they can be taken as fracture of ribs and clavicle, which can be considered as grievous. So far as the brain injury is concerned there is nothing to show that any fracture was there or any serious injury was caused. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances and also in view of the fact that there was also nothing to show that there was a permanent disability, as opined by the competent medical board, the Tribunal has granted the total medical expenses though the bills do not disclose as to a sum of Rs.36,800/- covers under Ex.A.30 to 39 includes the medicines also. Evidently, no operation was conducted to the claimant and the room rent claimed by the claimant appears to be on higher side. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the compensation confined to Rs.1,00,000/- in stead of Rs.1,30,415/- granted by the lower Tribunal, as it is not substantiated by reliable and conclusive evidence. Accordingly, the award is modified. 12. Accordingly, M.A.C.A.M Nos.3279, 3282 of 2011 are partly allowed and M.A.C.M.A.No.3283, 3508 and 3518 of 2011 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO DECEMBER 21, 2011 YVL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 3279, 3282, 3283, 3508 AND 3518 OF 2011 21.12.2011 YVL the claimants in M.A.C.M.A No. 3279 (O.P.No.45 of 2004), M.A.C.M.A.No.3508 (O.P.No.42 of 2004) and M.A.C.M.A.No.3283 (O.P.No.44 of 2004) of 2011 received injuries and the claimants in M.A.C.M.A. No. 3518 (O.P.No.46 of 2004) father of the deceased Gampa Naga Archana claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which was granted and the claimants in M.A.C.M.A.No.3282 (O.P.No.43 of 2004) of 2011 claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- consequent on the death of deceased Gampa Uma Rani, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,63,160/-.