THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. Nos. 1469 and 1531OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.A. 1531 of 2004 is filed by the Insurance Company against grant of compensation of Rs.5,29,000/- by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide order and decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1337 of 2001 dated 29.12.2003. Whereas, contending that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,29,000/-, the petitioners-claimants filed C.M.A. No. 1469 of 2004. Hence, both the C.M.As. are decided by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. According to the claimants, deceased Ramavath Jaya Ram was working as Security Guard in Hyderabad University and drawing salary of Rs.5,054/- per month. On 11.6.2001, he, along with his son Raghavender Kumar and his second wife Santamma were going on a Rajdoot Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-12B-3252 from Hyderabad to Nizamsagar to attend festival. When they reached Pedasankarampet cheruvu gattu, a lorry bearing No. ATT-6506, driven by its driver in high speed and rash and negligent manner, hit their motor cycle, resulting in death of the deceased and his son on the spot and injuries to Santhamma, who was shifted to hospital, where she succumbed to injuries. The police of Sankarampet P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.15/01 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry. Therefore, petitioners-claimants filed O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, stating that due to sudden death of the deceased, the entire family members are put to great loss and they have lost love and affection. The deceased had two wives. 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the son through first wife and 3rd petitioner is the son through second wife Santamma. 1st petitioner lost consortium also. The petitioners have incurred huge expenses towards transportation and funeral of the deceased and that the accident was caused only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 1st respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte. 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the manner and occurrence of the accident, involvement of Lorry bearing No. ATT- 6506 in the accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry, the age, income and occupation of the deceased at the time of accident and the insurance coverage of the said lorry by 2nd respondent. It was further asserted that the policy number mentioned by the claimants did not tally with the series of the policy issued by it. It was denied that the person who drove the lorry at the time of accident was having valid and subsisting driving licence to drive such vehicle and the vehicle was roadworthy to ply. It was not admitted that the rider of Rajdoot Motor Cycle had a valid and existing driving licence to drive such vehicle and the said motor cycle was roadworthy to ply. Thus, 2nd respondent contended that the petition is not maintainable and the O.P. is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 11.6.2001 at about 11 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. ATT-6506 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation: If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? After detailed consideration of the entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident, in which the deceased died, had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No. ATT 6506. Further, while examining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found that the deceased was working as Security Guard in Hyderabad University and drawing salary of Rs.5,054/- per month and he was contributing the entire income to the family. However, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus fixed the annual contribution of the deceased to his family at Rs.42,000/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased as 49 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier ‘12’ and came to the conclusion that the total loss of dependency is Rs.5,04,000/-. Further, it was held that 1st petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.5,29,000/-, payable by respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said grant of compensation, appellant-respondent No.2 in O.P. filed this C.M.A. 1531 of 2004, whereas, appellants-petitioners in O.P. filed C.M.A. 1469 of 2004 on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have awarded total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- instead of awarding only a sum of Rs.5,29,000/-. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record. Having regard to the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in granting total compensation of Rs.5,29,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company contended that at the time of accident, the deceased, his son Raghavender Kumar and his second wife Shanthamma were traveling on the Motor Cycle and, therefore, it cannot be said that the policy covers when three persons were traveling on the motor cycle. However, admittedly, it was a vehicle on which two persons can travel. It appears, Raghavender Kumar was very minor and his age was not noted anywhere in the proceedings and the claim was limited only to the extent of deceased Ramavath Jaya Ram. Therefore, it cannot be said that Policy does not cover the death of the deceased for granting compensation. The Tribunal below has dealt with the matter in detail and considering the oral and documentary evidence of PWs 1 and 2, coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.A-1 to A-8, rightly granted compensation of Rs.5,29,000/- and the same cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, C.M.A. 1531 of 2004, filed by the Insurance Company, is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. Further, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in C.M.A. No. 1469 of 2004 that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,29,000/-. Taking into consideration the salary last drawn by the deceased, his age, occupation, loss of estate and loss of consortium etc., the Tribunal rightly granted compensation of Rs.5,29,000/- on all counts, with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No interference is required by this Court into such order and decree passed by the Tribunal below. There are no merits in C.M.A. 1469 of 2004 also and the same is liable to be dismissed. Both the C.M.As. are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 30-4-2010. MVB.