IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.58 of 2008 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada. ..Appellant AND Kesireddy Manohari and others .. Respondents JUDGEMENT: The appeal is directed against the award dated 06-09-2007 in M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal. The factual background for the appeal is that Kesireddy Ranga Reddy, aged 26 years, was involved in a motor accident when the Lorry No.AP-36-T-6576, driven rashly and negligently, hit the jeep, in which he was travelling, from behind near Vivekananda Public School on 15-07-2001 at about 9.00 P.M. He died on his way to the hospital due to the grievous injuries suffered in the accident and Cherial Police registered Cr.No.54 of 2001 against the driver of the lorry. Hence, the wife, four children and mother of Ranga Reddy sought for a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry. While the driver and owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim putting the claimants to strict proof and not admitting their allegations. The compensation claimed was claimed to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and B.1 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the evidence of PW.2, the eye-witness, corroborated by Ex.A.1- First Information Report and ExA.3-Charge sheet and concluding that the rash and negligent driving of the lorry resulted in the accident. The Tribunal also found that Ex.B.1-insurance policy was in force at the relevant time and hence, it concluded that the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry are jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal referred to the Pahani patrikas and the driving licence of the deceased filed by PW.1, who claimed Ranga Reddy to be running Reddi Chicken Centre and doing transport business and having agricultural lands under his cultivation. The claim of PW.1, the wife, about the monthly income of the deceased being Rs.10,000/- per month was also referred to and in the absence of positive evidence for quantifying the income, the Tribunal assessed the same at Rs.4,500/- per month. On such assessed income, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and on the annual contribution of Rs.36,000/- to the family, a multiplier of 18 was applied to arrive at the loss of dependency of Rs.6,48,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of consortium, apart from Rs.2,000/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, it granted a compensation of Rs.6,54,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. except for the period from 22-12-2003 to 17- 01-2007 and proportionate costs. The insurer challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the Tribunal fixed the income on the high side and also adopted a wrong multiplier resulting in granting of highly excessive compensation and therefore, it desired the impugned award to be reversed. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswararao, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents are heard. The appellant did not challenge the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident, the subsistence of a valid insurance policy and the joint and several liability of the respondents to the claim petition to justly and adequately compensate the claimants for the death of Ranga Reddy in the motor accident. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. The Tribunal referred to the copies of the Pahanies and the driving licence of the deceased and also noted that even the jeep in which the deceased was travelling was owned by him. The Tribunal referred to the inquest report in which independent mediators have noted the occupation of the deceased as business and the claim of PW.1 that her husband was running Reddy Chicken centre, besides doing transport business was not contradicted by any evidence for the respondents. The age of the deceased being 26 years is not in dispute and the Tribunal had in fact referred in detail to the principles governing the assessment of compensation in such cases before arriving at the just compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal did not accept the claims of PW.1 at face value regarding monthly income of Rs.10,000/- claimed by her and taking into account the business, the agricultural lands and the vehicle owned by the deceased, the Tribunal still fixed his income at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is rather on the conservative side and not on the high side and keeping the probabilities arising out of the evidence on record about the occupation of the deceased, the only correction required in the assessment of compensation is adjusting the multiplier in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and for the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier would have been 17 and not 18 in terms of the said decision. The compensation already awarded, therefore, should be reduced by Rs.36,000/- and though Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswararao, learned counsel for the claimants, desired enhancement of the amount granted towards loss of consortium, as the overall assessment of the total compensation awarded is representing just and adequate compensation, there is no need for revision of any other sums granted by the award. Therefore, the award in M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2002 dated 06-09-2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, is modified by reducing the compensation awarded by Rs.36,000/- and otherwise confirming the said award in all other respects. The reduced compensation shall be reduced from the respective shares of the claimants in the same proportion in which the compensation was directed to be shared between the claimants by the impugned award. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-09-2010 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298