IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2547 of 2005 Between: The National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Office Manager, Opp. Municipal Office, Karimnagar .. Appellant AND Syed Kasim and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.134 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, dated 18-07-2005. Syed Khaseem Bee, aged 5 years, was dashed against by jeep No. ATV 5634 near Kummaripalli bus stage on 11-08-2003 resulting in severe injuries on the face and stomach and unconsciousness. She was pronounced dead when taken to Government hospital, Korutla and Raikal police registered crime No.64 of 2003 against the jeep driver for rash and negligent driving and he was prosecuted in C.C. No.457 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial. Hence, the parents of the child sought for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the jeep. The driver and the owner claimed that the vehicle was driven very slowly and the negligence of the custodians of the deceased child resulted in the mishap. The insurer, who obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, also contended that the contributory negligence of the deceased child and her custodians resulted in the accident. The Tribunal considered the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the parents to compensation on the issues framed by it, after examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and marking Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.B.1 during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the father and grand mother of the deceased, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 charge-sheet to conclude the responsibility for the accident to be with the jeep driver with his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal assessed the compensation payable with reference to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which the income of even a non-earning person was presumed to be Rs.15,000/- per annum and appropriate multiplier applicable to the persons of the age up to 20 years is 15. That apart, the claimants were noted to be entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate in addition to Rs.1,50,000/- to be granted towards loss of life. As Ex.B.1 insurance policy showed subsisting insurance at the relevant time, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum. The insurer challenged the same in this appeal contending that the notional income and the multiplier adopted were incorrect and no amounts should have been granted towards funeral expenses or loss of estate. Application of Second Schedule to a claim under Section 166 is not correct. Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants are heard. The owner and driver of the jeep did not enter appearance before this Court. The claim of the claimants that the 5 year old child was studying in an English medium school, is not in dispute and her death in the accident involving the rash and negligent driving of the jeep, is also not disputed by any of the three respondents to the claim, denying their joint and several liability to justly and adequately compensate the parents of the deceased. In the absence of any other satisfactory mode of assessing the loss of dependency, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong in taking shelter under the Second Schedule, which made it possible to assess the income of even a non-earning person at Rs.15,000/- per annum and further made the applicability of multiplier 15 possible for all persons below the age of 20 years. What was awarded was minimal and even funeral expenses and loss of estate permissible under Second Schedule were not, in fact, separately awarded, as the claim was restricted to Rs.1,50,000/-. Interest at 7.5 per cent per annum was not shown, in any manner, to be deviant from the then prevailing rate of interest and hence, there are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the reasonable award. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-09-2011 Svv