THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A No. 4501 of 2003 DATE: 11-02-2011 Between: Yeraboina Kalamma and others … Petitioners and Shaik Moulana and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A No.4501 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against award in O.P.No.418 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda dated 06.01.2003. 2. Y.Narasimha, aged about 30 years, was claimed to be earning Rs.1,600/- per month as part-time salary from Konarka Steel Company and Rs.1,000/- per month from agriculture. He had his wife, four minor children and aged parents to support. On 18.10.1996, he was coming on a Hero Honda motor cycle along with his friend towards Choutuppal and when lorry bearing No.AHT 6738, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed against the motor cycle, the pillion rider Narasimha and his friend S.Janga Reddy were seriously injured. Narasimha died while undergoing treatment at Kamineni Hospital at Hyderabad on 24.10.1996. Choutuppal Police registered Cr.No.26/96 against the lorry driver and hence dependents of Narasimha/Claimants 1 to 7 claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry. The insurer alone contested the claim denying the involvement of the lorry and putting the claimants to strict proof. It also claimed that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are also necessary parties. The tribunal framed issues about the death of Narasimha in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, absence of any proper and necessary parties and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. 3. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and exhibits A.1 to A.11 and B.1 were marked during the enquiry. 4. Originally the claim was made before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Khammam in O.P.No.66 of 1997 wherein an award was passed for Rs.2,10,000/- and, subsequently the decree was set aside on point of jurisdiction and the original petition was transferred to Nalgonda court. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the eye witness account of P.W.2 corroborated by the First Information Report Exhibit A.1, the Inquest Panchanama Exhibit A.4 and the other documents. While the accident was concluded to be due to the rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver, the tribunal, hence, considered the driver or owner or insurer of the motorcycle to be not necessary parties. The tribunal took the age of the deceased as 32 years as mentioned in Exhibit A.4-the Inquest Panchanama and it also considered the employment of the deceased in Konarka Steel Factory to have been probablised. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence to corroborate P.W.3, the salary was taken only as Rs.1000/- per month. On the annual salary of Rs.12,000/-, applying a multiplier of 16, the tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs.1,92,000/-. But as the Khammam Tribunal awarded Rs.2,10,000/-, this tribunal also awarded the same sum as compensation with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. The interest was awarded only from the date of representing the claim before Nalgonda tribunal. In so far as the 1st respondent driver is concerned, the claim was dismissed in view of the discrepancy in his name between the claim and Exhibits A.1 and A.5. Only the owner and insurer were jointly and severally made liable. 6. The claimants preferred the present appeal contending that the entire claim of Rs.3,00,000/- should have been granted in view of the deceased earning Rs.2,000/- as salary and Rs.1,000/- from agriculture per month. Interest ought to have been awarded from the date of the accident till payment and it should have been at 12% per annum. Compensation should have been assessed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the assessment of the compensation also was incorrect. Hence, the appeal. 7. Heard Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Utla, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurer. None appeared for the 2nd Respondent-owner of the vehicle before this court. 8. The conclusion of the tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving is unchallenged by any party and the ownership of the vehicle with the 2nd respondent and its valid and subsisting insurance with the 3rd respondent are also not in dispute. So is the joint and several liability of respondents 2 and 3 to justly and adequately compensate the claimants whose relationship with and dependence upon deceased Narasimha is not in dispute. The only question that remains for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of just and adequate compensation. 9. For assessing the income of the deceased, the tribunal assigned no reasons as to why the evidence of P.W.3, the co-worker of the deceased in Konarka Steel Company, Choutuppal was not accepted. Even assuming that there is no evidence about the agricultural activity or the income therefrom for the deceased, the claim of P.W.3 that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,800/- and was also earning overtime salary of Rs.200/- per week could not have been straightaway brushed aside. Even otherwise, even non- earning persons are presumed by the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum which could have been taken as the basis even in the absence of any salary certificate or other documents in support of the claimant. The deceased, an earning person can be safely assumed to be earning not less than Rs.1,500/- per month. The deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased can only be 1/5th as the deceased left seven dependents and SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], limited deduction in such cases only to 1/5th. The age of the deceased was rightly taken by the tribunal as 32 years with reference to Inquest Panchanama in the absence of any other evidence and the appropriate multiplier applicable to such age is 16. If so, the loss of dependency @ Rs.1,200/- per month comes to Rs.2,30,400/-. SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER (stated supra) itself laid down that the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Altogether the compensation should have been Rs.2,50,400/- which could be rounded off to Rs.2,50,000/-. 10. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of Rs.40,000/. Insofar as the interest is concerned, the tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong, when it did not grant such interest before the presentation of the claim to it. The period spent in prosecuting the claim before the wrong tribunal could not have earned interest to the detriment of the respondents 2 and 3. On the enhanced portion of compensation also, interest should be so awarded. 11. But in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid, the same can be limited to 6% per annum while proportionate costs, of course, shall follow suit. 12. Therefore, the award dated 06.01.2003 in O.P.No.418 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Second Additional District Judge, Nalgonda is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from 21.03.2001 till the date of payment and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced compensation also shall be shared in the same proportion in which the original compensation was directed to be shared and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD 11.02.2011 KSM/KSN [1] 2009 ACJ 1298