HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2347 OF 2006 AND 2062 OF 2009 Dt.8.7.2010 M.A.C.M.A.NO.2347 OF 2006 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Appellant And Gujjali Sughunamma and others ..Respondents M.A.C.M.A.NO.2062 of 2009 Between: Gujjali Sughunamma and others ..Appellants And Uppu Koteshwar and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2347 OF 2006 AND 2062 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of common award in O.P.No.1814 of 2004 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, dated 15.5.2006. Appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.2062 of 2009 filed the aforesaid O.P.No.1814 of 2004 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Gujjali Krishna in a motor accident which occurred on 3.4.2004. The Tribunal award compensation of Rs.1,83,000/-. Against which, the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2062 of 2009 for enhancement of compensation. The Oriental Insurance Company, who is 2nd respondent in the said O.P. filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2347 of 2006 contending that the deceased himself was the owner and insured and hence the policy does not cover the risk and the risk is covered in respect of third parties alone and there is no contractual and statutory liability on the part of the insurance company and the court below wrongly applied the multiplier and granted excess compensation. In so far as the contention of the insurance company that there is no contractual or statutory liability in the instant case is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company after perusing Ex.B-1 insurance policy fairly submits that as per the insurance policy the personal liability is also covered if a separate premium of Rs.100/- is paid for personal liability in addition to the basic liability and extra loading legal liability. Therefore, the issue raised by the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. Rajni Devi[1] wherein it was held the liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act, but, however, for the purpose of claim the only terms of contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. As per the contract of the policy, personal accident is also covered. Therefore, it cannot be said that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation merely because the owner also died in the accident. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves no merits and it is liable to be dismissed. In so far as the quantum of compensation and enhancement as sought for by the claimants are concerned, the facts, in brief, are that claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and the 3rd claimant is sister of the deceased and the deceased Gujjali Krishna while going in Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 29T 0231 in the night hours and when they reached Kurmed Gate X Road near 67/4 mile stone at about 2130 hours, the driver of the said Tata Sumo drove it in high speed and dashed a stationed tractor trally No. AP 22T 3157, as a result of which the front left portion of the Tata Sumo completely damaged and the deceased has sustained grievous head and spiral injuries apart from other serious injuries all over the body and while undergoing treatment at N.I.M.S Hospital he succumbed to injuries on 6.4.2004 at 11.15 p.m. It is stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month on his hotel business and contributing the same for the maintenance of his family members and the claimants are solely depending on the earnings of the deceased. The father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-5, copies of F.I.R., inquest report, post mortem examination report, Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report and charge sheet and prayed for payment of compensation for Rs.2,50,000/-. In the F.I.R his age was mentioned as 52 years and the age of his wife was mentioned as 48 years and he is doing hotel business. It is stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver alone of the said offending vehicle. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the owner of the vehicle died while he was travelling in the vehicle and the vehicle is a passenger vehicle and as per Ex.B-1 policy 18 passengers were allowed to carry in the vehicle. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, though it is stated by P.W.1 that the deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by doing hotel business, he did not file any supporting evidence, the court below considering the age of the deceased and his avocation, Rs.3,000/- was taken as his monthly income and he being unmarried person, 1/3rd of the income was taken into account, which comes to Rs.1000/- per month.. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] held that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction of 50% would be treated as personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family and if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent and 50% would be treated as per the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. If that be so, if Rs.3000/- is taken into account as the monthly earning of the deceased, after deducting 50%, it would come to Rs.1500/- per month. Even if the age of the mother is taken into account as 45 years the multiplier required to be taken as 15. But, in the instant case the multiplier was taken as 14 and therefore it cannot be said that the said multiplier 14 is not applicable. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the multiplier as 14. If that be so, the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.1500 x 12 x 14). Apart from that the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection to each of the claimant. Thus, the claimants are entitled to 2,67,000/-. Admittedly, the claim of the claimants was only Rs.2,50,000/-. Accordingly, the claim is restricted to Rs.2,50,000/- only. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2062 of 2009 filed by the claimants is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 7% per annum, as awarded by the court below, payable by the insurance company as well as the driver of the vehicle jointly and severally, from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, as held by the court below. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2347 of 2006 filed by the insurance company was dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 8.7.2010 kpr [1] 2008 (4) ALD 34 (SC) [2] 2009 ACJ 1298