IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2211 OF 2003 Between: Karri Surya Rao & 3 others ..... Appellants And Adabala Dharma Rao & 2 others …Respondents And CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2212 OF 2003 Between: Karri Ravi Kiran ..... Appellant And Adabala Dharma Rao & 2 others …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.2211 & 2212 OF 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise against the common award in M.V.O.P.Nos.24 and 56 of 1999, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Kakinada, dated 24.02.2003, and hence, they are being disposed of by the common judgment. 2. Karri Vijay Kumar and his younger brother Karri Ravi Kiran were going on a scooter on 26.09.1997 at about 2.00 p.m. and near Sree Krishna Fish Seeds Centre, at Biccavolu, lorry No.ADI 9726, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed the scooter. Karri Vijay Kumar died on the spot due to the severe injuries received and Karri Ravi Kiran sustained severe injuries. Biccavolu Police registered Crime No.85 of 1997 against the lorry driver and hence, the parents, brother and sister of Karri Vijay Kumar sued for a compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.24 of 1999, while Karri Ravi Kiran sued for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.56 of 1999. Both the claims are against the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry. 3. The driver and the owner of the lorry remained ex parte in M.V.O.P.No.24 of 1999. They claimed in M.V.O.P.No.56 of 1999 that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, while the insurer contested both the claims contending that Karri Ravi Kiran had no valid driving license and contributed to the accident and also claimed that the lorry driver was not rash or negligent. Both the claims were claimed to be excessive. 4. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants for compensation in both the cases and both the claims were tried together on a joint memo by the parties. 5. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6, X-1 and B-1 were marked during the enquiry. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.W.2 corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report, Ex.A-2-Inquest Report, Ex.A-4-Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report and Ex.A-5-Charge sheet in C.C.No.133 of 1998 which was not contradicted by the driver or owner of the lorry or even the insurer. Hence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent alone. 7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the deceased Karri Vijay Kumar was a student of II Year Intermediate and estimated his capacity to earn at Rs.5,000/- per month as he would have been at least a Clerk as his father was an Officer in the Food Corporation of India. Noting that the deceased would have been married and would have maintained his own family, the Tribunal assessed the probable contribution of the deceased to his parents at Rs.500/- per month. Taking the mother’s age at 45 years as the basis, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 and assessed the loss of contribution of future earnings at Rs.78,000/-. Noting that the sister of the deceased was married and the brother was a major by the time of the accident, the Tribunal did not consider them as the legal representatives or dependents of the deceased and made the parents alone entitled to the compensation of Rs.78,000/-. 8. The Tribunal assessed the evidence of P.W.2 about the injuries suffered with reference to the evidence of P.W.3, the doctor who treated him for ten injuries on his person and P.W.4, the Dentist who treated P.W.2 for the intra oral traumatic injury on the teeth. Noting that there was no loss of teeth and no surgery as per the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, the Tribunal concluded P.W.2 to have sustained only fracture on the left ankle and nine injuries over the body without any consequential disability. Even the fracture was noted to have been completely heeled and any damage to his scooter was noted to have not been established nor the expenditure for repairing the scooter. Hence, the Tribunal considered it just and adequate to award Rs.20,000/- to P.W.2 as compensation. The compensation amount was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum and also proportionate costs and further directions were given about the disbursement of the compensation. 9. The claimants in C.M.A.No.2211 of 2003 contended that the compensation awarded was meagre and the contribution assessed was too low. They claimed that a multiplier of 20 would have been adopted and interest would have been given at 12% per annum apart from granting damages towards loss of estate, etc. The claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2212 of 2003 claimed that Ex.A-6-Wound Certificate was not properly considered and the grievous injuries could not have been restricted to be compensated with a meagre sum of Rs.20,000/- . 10. Heard Smt. Uma Devi, learned counsel representing Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B. Devanand, learned standing counsel for the insurer and none entered appearance for the driver and owner of the lorry before this Court. 11. Insofar as the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the lorry driver are concerned, no party has challenged the same and the ownership of the vehicle with the second respondent and its subsisting insurance with the third respondent not being in dispute, the joint and several liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry to justly and adequately compensate the claimants in both the cases cannot be in dispute. Therefore, the only point that is left for consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants in the cases are entitled. 12. The deceased Karri Vijay Kumar was admittedly studying II Year Intermediate by the time of his death at the age of 20 years and he hailed from a family where his brother and sister later completed post graduation and whose father is an Officer in the Food Corporation of India. Apart from any comparisons with the classmates of the deceased, attempted to be projected by P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, he could have been reasonably expected to pursue his further studies to a decent level and to be securing a reasonable employment to maintain himself and his family including his parents, spouse and children. The Tribunal, while accepting that the deceased would have been gainfully employed at the minimum as a clerk, estimated the probable income at Rs.5,000/-. When the claimants themselves estimated the probable notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-, keeping in view the natural tendency of the claimants to exaggerate such probable income to get higher compensation and the other surrounding circumstances, such income could have been assessed at about Rs.3,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal assessed the loss of contribution to the parents only at Rs.500/- out of Rs.5,000/- per month at 1/10th which is against the settled principles of law as ultimately crystallized in SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]. The Apex Court, referring to the various contingencies that arise in such background, considered that normally, 50% should have to be considered as the contribution to the family. If so, the loss of contribution to the parents can be assessed at Rs.1,500/- per month. While there is no serious dispute about the justification for the conclusion of the Tribunal about the disentitlement of the major brother and sister to any compensation, more so, when the sister was married, the loss of contribution to the parents of the future income should be with reference to the appropriate multiplier with reference to the age of the mother and the mother was stated to be aged 45 years in the claim petition. Taking the said age as representing completed years, the appropriate multiplier would be 13 as applied by the Tribunal, even according to SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1), as applicable to persons aged 46 to 50 years. If so, the loss of contribution should come to Rs.2,34,000/-. 13. The Tribunal did not award any other sums under any other heads and as per SARLA VERMA’s case (supra 1), the claimants should be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and considering all the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages under various heads, the parents, on the death of their son, should be entitled for a compensation which can be rounded off to Rs.2,50,000/- which would be reasonable and just. As such, the compensation in respect of the death of Karri Vijay Kumar to be granted to the parents should be increased by Rs.1,72,000/-. 14. Coming to the compensation to which the injured Karri Ravi Kiran will be entitled, while he claimed that he lost 16 teeth resulting in fixation of dentures and a plastic surgery to his right cheek, the evidence of P.W.4, the Professor of Dental Surgery who examined P.W.2 immediately after the accident, is that there was no loss of teeth and after getting treated for the intra oral traumatic injury, the injured did not attend the hospital at any time later. P.W.4 stated that the entire treatment was made free of cost and he was positive that no surgery was conducted in respect of the said injury. 15. P.W.2 also tried to claim that in respect of the fracture to the left ankle, he underwent two surgeries during which steel rods were inserted and he also claimed to have sustained a fracture to his right kneecap. However, P.W.3, who examined P.W.2 immediately after the accident, noted ten injuries and did not speak about any surgeries or the nature of the injuries leaving any disability even partially or temporarily. P.W.2 was thus, not corroborated by any medical evidence and Ex.A-6- Wound Certificate contained only those injuries which were specified by P.W.3. The Tribunal took into account the nature of the injuries and the evidence on record in assessing the grant of Rs.20,000/- to be reasonable compensation and sofar as the damages to the scooter are concerned, no evidence was placed by P.W.2 on record to enable the Tribunal to grant any compensation under that head. Even if P.W.2 was not probablised to have contributed to the accident in any manner as alleged by the insurer, there appears no material on record to justify any enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 16. Therefore, while M.A.C.M.A.No.2211 of 2003 should succeed in part, M.A.C.M.A.No.2212 of 2003 should fail. On the enhanced compensation in M.V.O.P.No.24 of 1999, interest can be restricted to 6% per annum in view of the length of time for which the insurer has to pay such interest thereon from the date of the petition till the date of realization, apart from proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the enhanced compensation also shall be shared between claimants 1 and 2 equally and no further directions might be given about the disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time. 17. In the result, the common award in M.V.O.P.Nos.24 and 56 of 1999, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, dated 24.02.2003, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- to the claimants 1 and 2 in M.V.O.P.No.24 of 1999 along with interest at 6% per annum thereon from the date of the petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. The enhanced compensation also be shared between claimants 1 and 2 equally. 18. Hence, M.A.C.M.A.No.2211 of 2003 is allowed in part and M.A.CM.A.No.2212 of 2003 is dismissed accordingly and the parties shall bear their own costs in both the appeals. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th November, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.2211 & 2212 OF 2003 November 18, 2010. KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298