THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.93 OF 2009 DATED:29-04-2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 26-09-2007, in M.V.O.P.No.1214 of 2002 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-Jonesu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.07.2002. 1st claimant is the wife; claimants 2 and 3 are the children and the 4th claimant is the mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, at about 9.15 a.m. when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter from Savalyapuram side, opposite to Gayathri school, a mini lorry bearing No.AP 27 U 4919, belonging to the 5th respondent herein, driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter as a result of which the deceased sustained head injury and died while being shifted to the hospital. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 35 years and was working as mason earning Rs.6000/- per month. 4. 1st respondent herein, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. Appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing their claim and denying their liability. 5. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent-insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, insurer filed the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal failed to make apportionment of liability between the lorry driver and the driver of the scooter though it was a case of head on collision. He would further contend that the income taken by the Tribunal into consideration as Rs.2500/- is on the higher side. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks to justify the award and contend that there is no evidence on record that it is a case of head on collision. 9. Admittedly, the accident occurred in day light at about 9.15 a.m. on the main road and the two vehicles came in the opposite direction. From the very fact that the two vehicles came in the opposite direction, no inference can be drawn that it is a case of head on collision. In fact, there is no plea in the written statement filed by the appellant herein that it is a case of head on collision and the rider of the scooter also contributed to the accident by his own negligence. No evidence is also adduced by the appellant regarding the same. In the absence of any such plea and evidence, the contention raised at this stage that it was a case of head on collision and the liability needs to be apportioned among the driver of the two vehicles, cannot be appreciated. On a proper consideration of the evidence available on record, the categorical finding recorded by the Tribunal that it cannot be said that there is any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter and that the evidence on record speaks volumes against the negligence of the lorry driver, does not call for any interference. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation needs to be apportioned among the owners and insurers of both the vehicles does not therefore merit any consideration. 10. Regarding the claim, the evidence on record shows that the deceased was working as a mason. The amount of Rs.2500/- per month taken as income cannot therefore be considered to be on the higher side as the normal wages of a mason are not less than Rs.100/- per day. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the decision of the apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the suitable multiplier would be ‘16’ as the deceased was aged 35 years but not 17, which is applied by the Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that as per the same decision of the apex Court, deduction towards personal expenses will have to be limited to 1/4th as the deceased left behind four dependants but not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. 13. It is considered that if the multiplier of ‘16’ is applied and the personal expenses are deducted at 1/4th from the income of the deceased and the compensation for loss of estate is awarded at Rs.2500/- and loss of consortium at Rs.5000/- funeral expenses and transportation charges at Rs.5000/-, the total amount of compensation would come to around Rs.3,75,000/-, which is awarded by the Tribunal. 14. In the circumstances, it is considered that the said amount of Rs.3,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference, however the interest is payable at 6% p.a. as held in the decision of SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2] on the amount awarded. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, it is modified accordingly. 15. Subject to the above modification, regarding the rate of interest, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th April, 2011 Tsy [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298