IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.1518 of 2007 Dated: 02-12-2011 Between: National Insurance Company Limited ….Appellant And M.V.Prasada Rao and others. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1518 of 2007 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is directed against the award passed in O.P.No.2862 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad on 17.02.2007. The respondents 1 to 3, who are the parents and sister of the deceased M.Arun Kumar, have ﬁled the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- for the death of the deceased M.Arun Kumar in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, the deceased M.Arun Kumar was aged about 20 years at the time of his death and he was a student of III year engineering in ECE branch in Sri Chandrashekharendra Saraswathi Vishwa Mahavidyalaya, a deemed university at Enathur, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu. On 17.09.2004 the deceased was proceeding on his Suzki Samurai motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 9 AG 1599 from Begumpet towards Secunderabad side and when he reached near the end of Prakashnagar ﬂyover, a Tata Mobile van bearing temporary registration No.AP 9Q 2287, which was subsequently registered with permanent registration number as AP 10 V 615, came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, after giving ﬁrst aid he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad and he succumbed to injuries on 20.09.2004 at 1.45 p.m. while undergoing treatment. The appellant and the respondent No.4 herein have ﬁled the counter putting the petitioners to strict proof with regard to the age and educational qualifications of the deceased. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident resulting in death of M.Arun Kumar occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Mobile van bearing No.AP 10 V 0615? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-44 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents but Ex.B-1, the insurance policy copy, was marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held issue No.1 in favour of the claimants holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Mobile van bearing No.AP 10 V 0615. The said ﬁnding recorded by the Tribunal is not questioned in this appeal. With regard to quantum of compensation under issue No.2, the Tribunal, taking into consideration that the deceased was not an earning member and ﬁxed the notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier ‘15’, awarded Rs.12,00,000/- for the loss of dependency. Apart from that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,12,000/- towards actual fee paid in the engineering college, Rs.1,00,000/- towards other educational expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate totalling Rs.15,91,000/-. The appellant-Insurance Company has questioned the award of the said compensation. The Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company has pleaded that since the deceased is not an earning member, the notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum and erred in applying the higher multiplier ‘15’ and also erred in awarding Rs.2,12,000/- towards fees paid to the engineering college, educational expenses at Rs.1,00,000/- and medical expenses at Rs.60,000/-. The counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has pleaded that the deceased is a III year engineering student, as such the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and tried to justify the award passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the deceased was a student of ECE branch of engineering and he was studying III year engineering course as on the date of accident. As per the decision reported in B.Ramulamma and others v. M/s Venkatesh Bus Union and another[1], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the minimum income of the IV year engineering student can be ﬁxed less than Rs.12,000/- per month and further observed that some percentage i.e. 10% per year can be reduced in respect of student studying II year or III year, as the case may be. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased is a III year student, as such the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.10,800/- per month after deducting 10% out of Rs.12,000/-. Since the deceased was unmarried as on the date of his death, as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2], 50% has to be taken towards his personal expenses. Thus, after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the monthly dependence of the petitioners comes to Rs.5,400/-. Since the deceased was unmarried, the age of his mother, who is aged about 39 years, has to be taken into consideration for applying the proper multiplier and for the said age group the proper multiplier is ‘15’ as per the Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra) and thus, the total loss of dependence of the petitioners comes to Rs.5,400/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,72,000/-. Apart from that the petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and aﬀection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as per the decision of B.Ramulamma and others v. M/s Venkatesh Bus Union and another (referred supra). Since the petitioners are entitled for the compensation for the loss of dependency suﬀered by them due to the death of the deceased, they are not entitled for reimbursement of the fee paid in engineering college or educational expenses or medical expenses or transport expenses. Thus, the petitioners are only entitled for Rs.9,82,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs eighty two thousand only). In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing the compensation of Rs.15,91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.9,82,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs eighty two thousand only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of ﬁling of petition till realization. __________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA _______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated: 02-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1518 of 2007 Date: 02-12-2011 MR [1] 2009 (6) ALT 784 (D.B.) [2] (2009) 7 SCC 372 = 2009 AIR SCW 4992