IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2167 OF 2003 Between: Jenu Trimurthulu & 4 others ..... Appellants And Ravula Lingaiah & 2 others …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2167 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.72 of 1999, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, at Kakinada, dated 07.04.2003. 2. Jenu Krishna was coming on his cycle at about 3.30 p.m. on 25.04.1998 when vehicle bearing No.ADM 4217, driven by the first respondent rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed him from behind and ran over him. He was taken dead to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, and his brother Jenu Subba Rao gave a report to the police and the same was registered as Crime No.69 of 1998. Hence, the parents, brother and two sisters of Jenu Krishna claimed a compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The first respondent-driver contended the deceased himself to have negligently hit a stationed vehicle and then fell under the rear wheel of the lorry. While the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte, the insurer denied the averments of the claimants and claimed the claim to be excessive. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. 5. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 and B-1 were marked during the enquiry. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting Ex.A-2-Inquest Report as corroborating the evidence of the eye-witness-P.W.2, Jenu Suba Rao, who is the brother of the deceased, and Ex.A-1-First Information Report given by him. The Tribunal, hence, concluded that in the absence of the first respondent-driver entering into the witness box, the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent leading to the accident can be considered as true. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered that though the deceased was aged about 15 years, he might have been forced to earn for his livelihood as a motor mechanic and estimated his daily income as Rs.40/- per day and his monthly income at Rs.1,200/- per month. The Tribunal recorded the contribution towards his parents at Rs.500/- per month and awarded a compensation of Rs.90,000/- for loss of support and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal held that the elder sisters and brother who were majors cannot be considered dependents or legal heirs of the deceased and confined the compensation to the claimants 1 and 2/the parents only, while, however, granting Rs.5,000/- each to the sisters towards loss of love and affection. Interest was awarded at 9% per annum on the compensation apart from proportionate costs. The compensation of Rs.82,500/- was directed to be shared equally between the parents and directions were given about disbursement of the compensation. 7. The claimants challenged the award in this appeal contending that the monthly contribution should have been assessed at Rs.3,000/- and loss of estate should have been compensated at Rs.15,000/-. The multiplier adopted should have been 20 and interest should have been granted at 12% per annum. 8. Heard Smt. M. Uma Devi, learned counsel representing Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri B. Devanand, learned standing counsel for the third respondent-insurer. None appeared on behalf of the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle before this Court. 9. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the driver-first respondent is concerned, there is no challenge by any party and hence, the joint and several liability of all the three respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimants cannot be in dispute. The refusal of the claim of the third claimant by the Tribunal as he was a major and not a dependent also had become final and so also, the grant of only Rs.5,000/- each to the sisters towards loss of love and affection needs no revision in this appeal as his sisters also were majors even by the time of the accident and cannot be considered dependents or legal heirs in any manner. 10. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the appellants are entitled. 11. The deceased was claimed to be a motor mechanic even at the age of 15 years which factum, as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2, was not disputed by the respondents by any positive evidence. Right from Ex.A-1-First Information Report which was consistent, the plea that the deceased was working as a motor mechanic was also confirmed in the Inquest Report-Ex.A-2 by the independent mediators. The Statutory Investigating Agency in Ex.A-5-charge sheet also confirmed the deceased going to his mechanic shed at the time of the accident and the said consistent version in the oral and documentary evidence can be safely accepted. P.W.1 claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month as a motor mechanic and even the minimum wages payable to unskilled labourers at the relevant point of time would have been much more than Rs.40/- per day adopted by the Tribunal. While the Tribunal gave no reasons as to why it adopted such a figure, even the notional income of a non-earning person per annum was considered by the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to be Rs.15,000/-. Keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, the probable annual income of the deceased as a motor mechanic could have been safely assessed at about Rs.20,000/- per annum. The decision reported in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], has laid down in respect of such cases that the contribution of the deceased bachelor to the family should be assessed at 50% normally. If so, the contribution of the deceased thus can be safely assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum and with reference to the age of the mother at 42 years, the appropriate multiplier as per the decision reported in SARLA VERMA’S case (supra 1) would be 14. If so, the compensation towards loss of future support for the parents should have been a minimum of Rs.1,40,000/-. Apart from the same, as per the above referred decision, the parents should also be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and the compensation to be awarded to the parents should have been, therefore, Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.92,500/- only and taking into account all the pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages which might have been granted to the claimants under various heads, the enhancement can be rounded off to Rs.60,000/- payable equally to the parents. 12. Taking into account the length of time for which interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same can be confined to 6% per annum and proportionate costs also should be awarded. 13. In the result, the award in M.V.O.P.No.72 of 1999, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, at Kakinada, dated 07.04.2003 is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs to the claimants 1 and 2 only, to be shared equally between them, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th November, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2167 OF 2003 November 18, 2010. KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298