THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI MACMA NO. 1519 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The National Insurance Company Limited which has been arrayed as 2nd respondent in OP No. 1403 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Addl. District Judge, Khammam, has come before this Court questioning the award dated 25.3.2009 passed therein granting compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- to the petitioner No.2 and making it liable to pay such amount to her together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization and costs thereon, along with K. Appa Reddy, the owner of the crime van bearing No. AP 16 V 1439 who has been arrayed as 1st respondent in the aforementioned OP. The petitioner No.1 died during the pendency of the aforementioned OP and no legal heir of him was brought on record. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the petitioner’ and ‘the respondents’ as they are arrayed in the aforementioned OP. The facts of the case are briefly stated as under, Petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No. 2 is the mother of the deceased Rentala Ashok who died in an accident that took place on the intervening night of 17/18.5.2003. Their case as set out in their pleadings is that on the intervening night of 17/18.5.2003 while their son Rentala Ashok was proceeding on a Hero Honda motor cycle along with his friend Chinapongu Adinarayana, when they reached near 14/2 mile stone on a road between Manchukonda and 2 Budidempadu villages at about 2.30 A.M., a van bearing No. AP 16 V 1439, belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent, came against their motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motor cycle, as a result of the said accident the deceased Rentala Ashok and his friend Chinapongu Adinarayana died on the spot. As the death of the deceased occurred due to the accident caused by the driver of the van bearing No. AP 16 V 1439, the petitioners though laid the claim petition as against the respondent No.1, the owner of the crime van and the 2nd respondent/insurance company (the appellant herein) for compensation of Rs.8,64,000/-, restricted their claim to Rs.3.00 lakhs. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence of the 2nd petitioner who was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6, allowed their claim in part by granting compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- and made the appellant/insurance company and the owner of the crime van liable to pay such amount together with interest @ 7.5% per annum and costs thereon jointly and severally. The award passed by the Tribunal indicates that the appellant/insurance company was directed to satisfy the award first and then to initiate proceedings of recovery as against the owner of the crime van holding that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are violated by the owner of the crime van by handing over the vehicle to a driver who was having transport licence and also licence to drive a tractor and trailer, but not to drive the van which involved in the accident. Being aggrieved by the direction given by the Tribunal making the appellant/insurance 3 company liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioner No.2 first and later to initiate the proceedings of recovery as against the owner of the crime van, it has come before this Court by preferring the present appeal. Apart from the aforementioned contention, it has raised yet another contention in the appeal grounds that the claim laid by the petitioners for compensation ought to have been rejected by the Tribunal, as no document is filed by them for establishing the income of the deceased. The above contentions raised by the insurance company in the appeal grounds indicate that it has no grievance as to the finding recorded by the Tribunal so far as the negligence attributed to the driver of the crime van. Its grievance is only in so far as the assessment of the income of the deceased roughly at Rs.2,000/- per month and deduction of personal expenditure of the deceased @ 1/3rd instead of ½ as he was a bachelor and in respect of fixing of initial liability of payment of compensation and later to recover the same from the owner of the crime van by initiating proceedings of recovery against him. The insurance company has examined R.Ws 1 and 2 in proof of the defence taken by it as regards the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the vehicle owner. The evidence of R.W.1 is only to the effect that the crime van was having valid and subsisting insurance policy with their insurance company as on the date of accident under Ex.B1, the insurance policy. The evidence of R.W.2, 4 the additional licensing authority in Regional Transport Authority, Khammam is crucial for the insurance company to contend that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy of the crime van were violated by it’s owner. It is deposed by R.W.2 in his evidence that the driver of the crime van was holding licence to drive a tractor and trailer and he was not competent enough to drive a van. The driving licence extract of the driver of the crime van was also exhibited as Ex.X2 by the appellant/insurance company through R.W.2. The Tribunal, on examining the evidence of R.W.2 and Ex.X2, the driving licence of the driver of crime van, which would not authorize him to drive a van, directed the appellant/insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner No.2 reserving its right to recover the same from the owner of the crime van. It is not the contention of the insurance company that the driver of the crime van has no driving licence at all. It’s contention is that he was not authorized by Ex.X2 to drive a van. As per Ex.X2 he possesses a licence to drive a tractor and trailer and also a transport vehicle, but not the van. The driver of the crime van was not possessing licence to drive the van, as noticed from the contents of Ex.X2, regarding which evidence was given by R.W.2, the additional licensing authority in Regional Transport Authority, Khammam. Having regard to the aforementioned evidence, the Tribunal had rightly directed the insurance company to satisfy the 5 award first and then to recover the compensation amount paid by it from the owner of the crime van. As this Court is satisfied with the reasoning given by the Tribunal for making the appellant/insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner No.2 reserving it’s right to recover the same from the owner of the crime van, the appeal filed by the insurance company raising a prime contention in this regard deserves to be dismissed. The Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence of the 2nd petitioner who was examined as P.W.1 to speak about the avocation of the deceased, assessed his monthly income reasonably at Rs.2,000/- and his annual income at Rs.24,000/-. After duly deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed total loss of income contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs.1,60,000/- on multiplying his annual income contribution to his family with multiplier ‘10’. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenditure. The Tribunal thus awarded total compensation of Rs.1,72,000/-. But it appears that a mistake is committed by the Tribunal in deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure instead of 50% as he was a bachelor. Taking note of the contention raised by the appellant/insurance in this regard, this Court hereby deducts 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure and assesses his annual loss of income contribution towards his family at Rs.12,000/-. As the deceased was a 6 bachelor, the Tribunal had rightly taken the age of the 2nd petitioner who was his mother into consideration to assess appropriate multiplier. The Tribunal, on verification of the contents of Ex.A3, the post mortem report wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned as 24 years, had assessed the age of his mother in between 50 and 55 years. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier ‘11’ instead of ‘10’, as the appropriate multiplier for the people in the age group of 50 to 55 years is ‘11’ as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act. If the annual income contribution of the deceased amounting to Rs.12,000/- is multiplied by multiplier ‘11’, the total loss of income contribution of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.1,32,000/-. As it appears to me that meagre compensation is awarded under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenditure, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The petitioner is thus entitled to get total compensation of Rs.1,72,000/-. In the light of my above held discussion, there cannot be any hesitation for this Court to hold that the Tribunal has not committed any error in granting compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- to the second petitioner in respect of death of her son Rentala Ashok in the road accident. As the second petitioner is only surviving legal heir of the deceased, she is entitled to get entire compensation and the same is payable to her by the appellant/insurance company along with owner of the vehicle jointly and severally together with interest @ 7.5% per 7 annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. This Court also finds no ground to find fault with the Tribunal in fixing the initial liability as against the appellant/insurance company reserving its right to recover the compensation if any paid by it by initiating the proceedings against the owner of the vehicle in view of the discussion which I held in the foregoing paras. In the light of my above held discussion, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal cannot be meddled with and the same deserves to be confirmed. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company is hereby dismissed confirming the award passed in OP No. 1403 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Addl. District Judge, Khammam, dated 25.3.2009. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Dt.12.12.2018 KR