IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.3589 of 2008 and M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.3013 of 2010 Between: M. Jagannadham and others .. Appellants/Petitioners AND Union of India, rep. by Secretary, Central Secretariat, New Delhi and others .. Respondents/ Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: (per G. Bhavani Prasad, J) Grant of a compensation of only Rs.50,000/- towards ‘no fault liability’ under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the parents, sister and brother of M. Srinath in O.P. No.3085 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by the award and decree dated 21-02-2008 led the aggrieved claimants 2 to 5 to prefer the present appeal. M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.3013 of 2010 is a petition to receive six documents as additional evidence in the appeal. The appellants and M. Deepthi, claiming to be the wife of M. Srinath, claimed that M. Srinath, aged 22 years, was employed in Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited for a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-, contributed entirely to his wife, parents, sister and brother, who were the claimants. On 02-07- 2005 at about 1.30 P.M. when Srinath and Kum. Apoorva were going on Pulsar motor cycle No.AP-10RA-T/R-9711, military truck No.↑03C06945 9H going in the same direction suddenly took a left turn without any indicator sign opposite Indian Overseas Bank, Trishul Lines, Alwal. The left rear wheel of the truck dashed the hip of Apoorva, the pillion rider, and Srinath and Apoorva fell on the road, came into contact with the rear wheel of the truck and received severe injuries. Srinath was taken to Apollo hospital where the doctors declared him dead and post-mortem was conducted at Gandhi hospital. Bolaram police registered Crime No.64 of 2005 against the military truck driver. The claimants, hence, claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the Union of India, the Commandant concerned and the driver jointly and severally for the death of M. Srinath, a computer engineer. The driver remained ex parte, while respondents 1 and 2 resisted the claim contending that claimants 4 and 5 being sister and brother are not entitled to any compensation. M. Srinath was learnt to be unmarried and Kum. M. Apoorva, the pillion rider, appeared to have given a written statement about the shirt of Srinath getting entangled with rear bumper on the left side of the truck, due to which the motor bike skidded in the sand. The military truck driver claimed that he was travelling at a speed of 20 kilo metres per hour due to heavy traffic and there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver. The bumper of the truck could not have dashed the hip of Apoorva sitting on the motor bike with legs on either side when the truck bumper is at a higher level. If the motor bike was going by the side of the truck, the indicator could not have been seen by her and every military vehicle displayed ‘not to overtake from the left’. When the motor cycle attempted to overtake the truck from the left side, the motor cycle tyre skidded over the sand and both Srinath and Apoorva fell off the motor cycle when Srinath lost his balance. They were not wearing any helmets and there was no damage to the motor cycle. The case registered by the police has to be transferred to the Military Court and the compensation claimed is excessive. The other claims of he claimants are not known to respondents 1 and 2 who are liable only to pay the ‘no fault liability’ compensation. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the death of M. Srinath on 02-07-2005 was due to the rash and negligent driving of the military truck No. ↑03C06945 9H ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation ? If so, against whom ? 3. To what relief ? P.Ws.1 to 4 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 and B.1 were marked during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly opining that P.W.2 witnessed the accident when she was waiting at the bus stop near Alwal police station and even if P.W.2 was travelling on the motor cycle, the tail portion of the truck could have touched the motor cyclist only if he made an unsuccessful attempt to overtake the truck. As the road gets narrowed near the place of accident due to a culvert, the possibility of rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased was considered probablised from the evidence of P.W.2 and R.W.1, the driver. R.W.1’s claim that the motor cyclist tried to overtake the truck from left side, in which process he lost his balance and fell down, was accepted and the Tribunal also took adverse note of non-filing of any sketch of the scene of offence by the claimants. The filing of a charge- sheet by police against R.W.1 was brushed aside and the interested evidence of P.W.2 without any corroboration was not accepted. The Tribunal, hence, found that the deceased was guilty of rash and negligent driving, while noting that the deceased was 22 years 5 months by the time of death as seen from Ex.A.7 birth certificate. The Tribunal took note of the 1st claimant/P.W.1 not being tendered for cross-examination and her evidence being eschewed. It also noted that no marriage certificate was filed and no particulars of declaration given by the deceased about his dependents in respect of the medical insurance with his employers were furnished. Hence, the Tribunal considered his marriage to have not been proved. Taking the age of the mother as 43 years into account, the Tribunal felt that appropriate multiplier would be 11.43 as per Bhagawan Das v. Mohd. Arif[1]. The Tribunal noted that Ex.A.8 showed the deceased to be a B. Tech in Metallurgy and Material Technology and he was not a computer engineer/software/hardware engineer and the evidence of P.W.4, the Human Resources Manager of the employer of the deceased and Ex.A.11 offer letter were not acted upon, as the bank statement of the employer or employee about remitting the salary was not produced and as none connected with the earlier employers under Exs.A.9 and A.10 were examined. The Tribunal also opined that the Customer Care Executive and the Technology Support Associate could not have suddenly become a computer software engineer within months. Hence, the Tribunal took the probable monthly earnings at a minimum of Rs.5,000/-, deducted one-third towards his personal expenses and arrived at the loss of dependency of Rs.4,57,200/- apart from non-pecuniary damages of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Though claimants 2 to 5 would have been entitled to Rs.4,69,200/-, in view of the finding about the responsibility for the accident, the Tribunal limited the grant of compensation to ‘no fault liability’ and on the sum of Rs.50,000/-, it awarded interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally and dismissed the claim of the 1st claimant- wife. The parents, sister and brother filed the appeal contending that P.Ws.2 and 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 and A.9 to A.11 should have been accepted. Future prospects of the deceased should have been considered and the entire compensation should have been granted. Though the 1st claimant was impleaded as the 4th respondent and served with notice of the appeal, she did not enter appearance before this Court. Therefore, the finding against her about want of proof of her marriage with the deceased remained unchallenged by any party. The said conclusion having become final, the dismissal of the claim made by her is not the subject of adjudication herein. The appellants stated in M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.3013 of 2010 that M. Apoorva, the injured in the same accident, filed O.P. No.1777 of 2006 for compensation, in which the compensation was awarded in her favour. The judgment and decree in O.P. No.1777 of 2006, the depositions of Apoorva and the truck driver as P.W.2 and R.W.1 respectively therein, the certified copy of sketch of the scene of offence and the medical history of P.W.2 are relevant for appreciating the claim herein and may be admitted as additional evidence. Sri K.L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 2 are heard. The 3rd respondent was unserved and no steps were taken by the appellants to have the service of notice of the appeal on the 3rd respondent. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the additional evidence sought to be produced in M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.3013 of 2010 has to be received and admitted in evidence ? 2. Whether the rash and negligent driving of the military truck driver resulted in the accident and the death of M. Srinath ? 3. Whether the appellants are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what extent and from whom ? 4. To what relief ? Point No.1: It is not in dispute that M. Apoorva claimed to have been injured in the same accident being the pillion rider on the motor bike and she was also examined as P.W.2 in this case. If so, the proceedings in O.P. No.1777 of 2006 filed by her for compensation against the same respondents are of great relevance in appreciating the claim herein and the conclusions of the Tribunal on the evidence herein. As O.P. No.1777 of 2006 was decided on merits later to filing of this appeal, the claimants herein could not have produced the certified copies of the judgment and decree therein earlier, while the remaining four documents become relevant in the light of the adjudication in O.P. No.1777 of 2006. Even the depositions of P.W.2 and R.W.1 therein were subsequent to the decree and award herein. Under the circumstances, these documents have to be received in evidence and hence, M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.3013 of 2010 has to be ordered and the documents have to be marked as Exs.A.12 to A.17. Point No.2: The earliest version about the accident was the report given by the mother of P.W.2 within one hour after the alleged accident clearly specifying about the deceased Srinath and P.W.2 going on the pulsar vehicle AP R/A T/R 9711 being hit by military truck going on the same direction rashly and negligently. Ex.A.2 is the inquest report for the inquest over the dead body of Srinath conducted by 4 P.M. on 02-07-2005, the same day, in which the same allegations were repeated and the independent mediators opined that the military truck driver dashed the Bajaj pulsar driven by the deceased. Ex.A.3 is the charge-sheet filed by the police in C.C. No.230 of 2006 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in which P.W.2 was cited as the injured and eye witness and her mother was cited as the complainant. The police examined the panchas for the scene of offence and inquest also apart from other witnesses and concluded that R.W.1 herein was guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The independent investigation by the statutory investigating agency was not indicated to be suspect for any reason. Ex.A.4 report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector shows that no mechanical defect in the military truck was the cause for the accident and the contents of Ex.A.5 post-mortem report are in tune with Ex.A.6 medico-legal record of Apollo hospital about Srinath being brought dead after a road traffic accident. There is absolutely no material to suspect the authenticity and genuineness of Exs.A.1 to A.6. Even Ex.B.1 enquiry proceedings conducted by the Army show that P.W.2 stated to the military authorities also about the driver of the military vehicle suddenly applying brakes, due to which the rear mud guard of the military vehicle dashed her back. She was positive about Srinath and herself going on the motor cycle and her answers to the questions by the military Court are no contradiction to the happening of the accident. The statement of R.W.1 herein before the Military Court was to attribute contributory rashness or negligence to Srinath due to his attempting to overtake the military truck from the left side. He also stated about the motor cyclist and pillion rider suffering severe injuries. The statements of the co-driver and Chowkidar travelling in the vehicle recorded by the Military Court were to the same effect and the co-driver even named P.W.2 as the pillion rider. The fifth witness before the Military Court was informed about the accident by R.W.1 herein and the findings of the Military Court themselves show that the accident had, in fact, happened, though the responsibility for the same was attempted to be attributed to Srinath due to his trying to overtake the military vehicle from the left side. The findings of the Military Court were more an effort to absolve R.W.1 herein of any responsibility for the happening and the Military Court itself opined that Srinath died due to blunt injuries sustained in the accident, while P.W.2 also sustained severe injuries in the accident, for which, of course, the driver and co-driver and Chowkidar were considered to be not responsible. The Officer Commanding agreed with the opinion of the Court. But he also noted about Srinath falling down and being dragged on the ground along with the motor cycle and P.W.2 also sustaining severe injuries. P.W.2 in her evidence supported the version of the claimants and her statement during cross-examination that she was waiting at the bus stop near Alwal police station at a distance of less than 1 kilo metre from the scene of the accident, was taken by the Tribunal as showing that she was not the pillion rider, but was only waiting at the bus stop. The Tribunal not only overlooked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and B.1 but the very suggestions to P.W.2 during her cross-examination about the manner of the accident and if P.W.2 were waiting at a nearby bus stop before going on the motor cycle along with Srinath, the same could not have been taken as disproving the accident in the face of the other evidence on record. The truck driver himself as R.W.1 before the Court stated on oath that the deceased tried to overtake the military truck from the left side and in the process Srinath and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. He only denied his rashness and negligence, but not the accident itself nor is it the case of the respondents in their counter. The conclusion of the Tribunal that there were some admissions by P.W.2, which made it appear that P.W.2 was not travelling on the motor cycle, can only be rejected as perverse under the circumstances. It is not even the conclusion of the Military Court that the rash and negligent driving of Srinath was the cause for the accident, as it was the clear opinion of the Military Court that whatsoever has happened is an accident and no one is to be blamed. If the road was so narrow at the culvert making it physically impossible for the military truck to overtake the motor cycle as opined by the Tribunal, it was equally physically impossible for the motor cyclist to overtake or attempt to overtake the military truck and the assumptions and presumptions of the Tribunal without any evidentiary basis overruling the independent investigation conducted by the statutory investigating agency cannot be concurred with and assuming that Srinath did not have a driving licence or that he was not proved to be having a diving licence, the same gives no licence to R.W.1 to drive his military truck rashly and negligently and kill Srinath. The consistent contents of Exs.A.1 to A.6 coupled with the deposition on oath by P.W.2 corroborated by the probabilities arising out of the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 proceedings clearly show that broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record are that the rash and negligent driving of the military truck resulted in the accident and injuries to and death of Srinath. The additional evidence admitted in the shape of Exs.A.12 to A.17 as ordered in M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.3013 of 2010 further confirms the correctness of such a conclusion. Ex.A.12 copy of award in M.V.O.P. No.1777 of 2006 shows that P.W.2 was awarded compensation on merits against the same respondents on the conclusion of the Tribunal about the accident occurring due to the negligence of R.W.1 herein. Ex.A.13 is the decree following the award and Ex.A.14 copy of deposition of P.W.2 and Ex.A.15 copy of deposition of R.W.1 are more or less to the same effect and though R.W.1 relied on the dismissal of O.P. No.3085 of 2005 on fault liability, the Tribunal did not act on the same. Ex.A.17 medical history of P.W.2 concerning her treatment in Apollo hospitals also corroborates the claims of P.W.2 and Ex.A.16 copy of sketch of the scene of offence does not indicate the possibility of anything contrary happening than what was probablised by the evidence on record. In the impugned award, the Tribunal felt that non-filing of sketch of the scene of offence is suppression of material evidence. But neither any suppression nor any material can be gathered from Ex.A.16. Thus, the additional evidence produced in this appeal through Exs.A.12 to A.17 also runs counter to the claims of the respondents. Point No.3: In view of the findings on point No.2, respondents 1 and 2, the employers of respondent No.3, become vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of the 3rd respondent driver and the joint and several liability is to compensate the dependents of Srinath justly and adequately. So far as the 4th respondent claimed to be the wife of the deceased is concerned, the appellants or the 4th respondent did not challenge the conclusion of the Tribunal about want of proof of marriage of the 4th respondent with the deceased Srinath and the said finding having become final, the 4th respondent is not entitled to be compensated in any manner for the death of Srinath. The entitlement of the parents to be compensated cannot be in doubt even if the father is an employee and to the extent of the loss of contribution by the deceased to the parents/the family and other permissible heads of damages, the parents are entitled. Even the sister and brother, though majors, claimed to be dependents and the mother as P.W.3 stated on oath that all the four of them were depending on the earnings of the deceased. Nothing contrary to the claim was elicited during her cross- examination and the Apex Court pointed out in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. The Apex Court pointed out that even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent. As there is the evidence of P.W.3 to the contrary, claimants 4 and 5 can be considered to be dependents and all the appellants can be considered on such evidence to be entitled to be compensated in proportion to their dependence. In assessing the quantum of compensation, it has to be first noted that even in Ex.A.2 inquest report, the deceased was stated to be an employee of CSC Call Centre and to be aged 22 years. Ex.A.3 charge-sheet also specifies that the deceased was aged 22 years and was a Consultant of CSC. The post-mortem report Ex.A.5 also states the age as 22 years and so is Ex.A.6 medico- legal cases register. Ex.A.7 SSC certificate specifies the date of birth as 18-02-1983. Ex.A.8 shows that he became a Bachelor of Technology in Metallurgy & Material Technology from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University in 2005. Ex.A.9 from HTMT shows that Srinath was their Customer Care Executive with an annual gross salary of Rs.1.14 lakhs earlier and Rs.1.44 lakhs later. The value of insurance and transport provided to the deceased cannot be considered part of his earnings capable of being contributed to the family and Ex.A.10 issued by Nipuna shows that Srinath was taken as a Technical Support Associate for an annual gross salary of Rs.1,65,000/-, while the value of any food coupons, transport or insurance, etc., could not have been taken as assessable income for this purpose. Ex.A.11 is the offer letter from Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited offering an annual compensation of Rs.2,44,800/-. P.W.4, the HR Manager of the company stated about issuing Ex.A.11 and he was speaking about Srinath drawing the salaries specified from his earlier employers. He stated that the deceased joined the job on 30-06-2005 and it is obvious that he died within two days. While there is no ostensible reason to disbelieve P.W.4, even Ex.B.1 showed the age of the deceased as 22 years. The fact that he was called as Customer Care Executive by HTMT, Technical Support Associate by Nipuna and Associate System Support by Computer Sciences Corporation India, while he was a Bachelor of Technology in Metallurgy & Material Technology, was sought to be criticized by the Tribunal in the impugned award. But why a person with a particular technical qualification was assigned a particular technical designation for his employment is for the employers to decide and nothing unconvincing or unbelievable can be deduced only from such nomenclature. The Tribunal considered it very easy to prepare a colour Xerox copy of the letter head by using colour printer and scanner to prepare documents like Exs.A.9 to A.11. But it is not even the case of the respondents that Exs.A.9 to A.11 were so fabricated and P.W.4 was not suggested with any such thing during his cross- examination. The imagination of the Tribunal can only be said to have run wild deviating from the settled principles of appreciation of evidence by a Court of law. That apart, a Division Bench of our High Court in B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesh[3] after an exhaustive survey of the principles and the case law in this regard, concluded that the income of a Bachelor of Technology cannot be fixed less than Rs.12,000/- per month. Later the Apex Court considered the question in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited[4] and opined that it can be reasonably assumed that a Bachelor of Engineering from a prestigious institute would have got a good job. A decent job even in Government service at the level of Assistant Engineer was considered capable of fetching Rs.60,000/- per annum. Therefore, these two precedents as the basis, the proved qualification of the deceased as the criterion, the salary certificates Exs.A.9 to A.11 issued by the employers as dependable and the evidence of P.W.3 as uncontroverted, it can be considered probablised that the deceased was employed soon after the conclusion of his studies with different employers progressing in his career from an annual salary of about Rs.1.14 lakhs to an annual salary of about Rs.2.44 lakhs. The young boy in the ordinary and natural course of human events would have made further progress in his career and in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra), the Apex Court considered addition to income for future prospects at 50% of the actual salary for a deceased aged below 40 years, of course, if he had a permanent job. Keeping the factual matrix of this case and the precedential principles in mind, the capability of the deceased to earn can be taken at Rs.2,50,000/- per annum keeping in view that the actual earnings were claimed to have risen from Rs.1.14 lakhs to Rs.2.44 lakhs all in between 2004 and 2005 immediately after the engineering graduation of the deceased. Striking a balance between the natural