IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.1292 of 2008 DATE:17.06.2010 Between: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., …… Appellant/respondent-2 And: Karre Padmamma @ Padma and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A. No.1292 of 2008 JUDGMENT : Insurance company is the appellant. It questions liability as well as quantum of compensation. 2) The accident took place on 11.04.2006. The deceased was travelling in auto bearing No.AP 23 V 8984 which was being driven by R.W-1 who is driver-cum-owner of that auto. The auto met with accident and the deceased who was travelling in the auto sustained injuries and later succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. The police as well as the lower Tribunal found that R.W-1 was responsible for this accident and he drove the auto in rash and negligent manner. 3) R.W-1 filed his driving licence copy as Ex.C-1. As per Ex.C-1, R.W-1 possessed non-transport light motor vehicle driving licence. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that since the auto is a passenger vehicle, it should be driven by a person having transport driving licence and that R.W-1 who possesses only non-transport driving licence, cannot drive the same and that there is violation of policy condition in this case. 4) In National Insurance Company Limited V. Kusum Rai[1], the Supreme Court held that when the driver therein possessed a non-transport licence and not transport licence, there was breach of conditions of contract of insurance by the insured and that the insurance company is exempted from liability. The Supreme Court further held that in such a situation the insurance company may recover the amount paid from the owner by initiating proceedings before the executing Court. 5) Thus, in the case on hand also, the appellant cannot escape from initial liability of paying the compensation amount to the claimants or depositing the amounts in the Tribunal; but after making such payment or deposit, it is open to the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the insured by starting necessary proceedings before the executing Court. 6) The lower Tribunal took income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month, perhaps for the reason that the deceased was in his teens. But, the lower Tribunal applied multiplier of 19 in this case. Since the deceased was un-married and since compensation was awarded only to the parents of the deceased, the lower Tribunal should have selected multiplier suitable to average age of the parents or lesser age out of the two parents. Mother is aged 35 years and father is aged 42 years. Therefore, multiplier should have been taken at 16 having regard to Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act. In my opinion, income of the deceased taken at Rs.1,500/- per month is less than bare minimum prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, I propose to fix income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month instead of Rs.1,500/- per month. The lower Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of income of the deceased. Again, it is not correct deduction since wife and children are not the claimants; and since parents alone are the claimants, deduction for personal expenses should have been at 50% of the income. Therefore, the multiplicand comes to Rs.1,000/- p.m. and compensation comes to Rs.12,000/- x 16 = Rs.1,92,000/-. 7) In the result, subject to observations in para-5 of this judgment the appeal is partly allowed modifying the compensation amount from Rs.2,28,000/- to Rs.1,92,000/- with interest and bifurcation as contained in para-12 of the lower Tribunal’s judgment. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 17, 2010 KSH [1] 2006 ACJ 1336