IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA MA.CMA.No. 2874 OF 2007. Between: The Divisional Manager, M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch at Patancheru, Medak district. … Appellant V/s. Inturi Nageswar Rao & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri K. Sitaram Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ch.Prathap Reddy The Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA MA.CMA.No. 2874 OF 2007. J U D G M E N T : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 18-6-2007 passed in OP.No. 303 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, for Rs.7,34,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased, T.Nihar, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21-02-2006 at 03:30 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in a car bearing Regdn.No.AP-10/AF-1185 and by the time when he reached near Naskal village after crossing the cross roads, Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal district, its driver drove it in a rash and/or negligent manner and dashed it to a lorry bearing Regdn.No.AP-10-Z-6863 that was parked on the road. Due to which, the accident occurred leading to the instantaneous death of the deceased. Thereafter, the Police Naskal registered a case in Cr.No.20/2006 for the offence punishable under sections 304-A and 338 IPC against the driver of the said car. The deceased was a student of Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering with good academic record. Having lost their son in the above accident, the petitioners-claimants preferred the claim for compensation from the Respondents 1 and 2, who are respectively the owner and insurer of the said car that was validly insured at the time of accident. 2. Before the Claims Tribunal the first respondent called absent and set exparte. Second respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition, putting the petitioners to strict proof of the same and contending inter alia that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of lorry by its driver on the road without care, precaution, as such, the owner and insurer of said lorry are necessary parties to the claim, as they are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and since they are not impleaded, the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and liable to be dismissed. That the deceased was gratuitous passenger in the said car at the time of accident and as such the policy does not cover any risk in respect of such passengers and hence the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. That the petitioners were not depending on the deceased and that the insured having colluded with the petitioners, did not report the matter of accident to the insurer, as such, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. That unless it is proved that the deceased was involved in the accident caused by the said car and that it was insured with second respondent and that the person, who drove it at the time of accident was having valid and subsisting driving license and that the petitioners are sole legal heirs of deceased, the second respondent would not be liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and that the claim is excessive, the petitioners are not entitled for the same and the petition, is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle ? 2) whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom ? 3) To what relief ? 4. During the course of trial, the petitioners-claimants examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-17. On behalf of second respondent no oral evidence was let-in but Ex.B1 copy of Insurance Policy was marked. 5. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Claims Tribunal on issue No.1 held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.AP-10AF-1185. On issue Nos.2 and 3, the Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.7,34,000/- by holding that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Patancheru Branch, Medak district, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. Now the appellant-Insurance Company is only questioning the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It is contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal ought not to have fixed the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month, since he is admitted to be a third year Engineering student. Secondly, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted half of the monthly earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA (SMT) & ORS. V/s. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR [1]. So far as the monthly earnings of the deceased are concerned, the Claims Tribunal at the most was accepted to take into consideration the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which, the earnings of a non-earning person have to be fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of his death in the alleged motor vehicle accident and admittedly he was an unmarried boy being a bachelor. The age of his mother was taken as 42 years and the appropriate multiplier 11.85 was applied, rounding off the same to 11. The appellant-Insurance Company has no grievance of adopting the age of the mother of the deceased for the sake of selecting appropriate multiplier and also in applying the multiplier ‘11’. It is only questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of respondents-claimants, who are parents of the deceased. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that the deceased was a third year Engineering student and therefore his case has got to be considered sympathetically. That even legally speaking the cases of similarly placed persons are considered by the courts and therefore just and reasonable earnings are fixed of course basing on guess work having regard to the realities of life. That the Claims Tribunal has taken a minimum of Rs.8000/- as monthly earnings of the deceased after considering the decision reported in various cases. Further he contended that the Claims Tribunal though has rightly taken the age of mother of the deceased for fixing appropriate multiplier, however, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma’s Case referred supra, the appropriate multiplier for the present age of 42 years is ‘14’. If that being the case, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in fixing the multiplier at 11 instead of 14. The monthly earnings fixed by the Claims Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. They are not liable to be interfered with except the percentage of deduction therefrom. As per the decision in Sarla Varma, in case of death of a bachelor, half of his monthly earnings are liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, by fixing the appropriate multiplier 14, the loss of annual dependency has to be ascertained. However, half of the amount there from is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses, as he was a bachelor aged about 20 years at the time of his death in the motor vehicle accident. Thus, the monthly earnings comes to Rs.4000/-. Rs.4000 x 12 x 14 = Rs.6,72,000/-. 8. The total loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,72,000/- besides the same, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and further entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs6,82,000-00 together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. With the said modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO, NALLA 15-07-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA MA.CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2874 OF 2007 Circulation No.164 Date:15-7-2010 Computer No.43 Court Master: I s L [1] ) (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases-121