THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD MACMA Nos.664 and 1761 of 2007 Date:22nd December, 2010 MACMA No.664 of 2007 Between: 1. P.Kari Vishwanatham & Anr. ... Appellants a n d 1. M/s.Malhotra Finance Co. rep. by its Manager, R/o.A-484, Transport Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan & Anr. … Respondents *** MACMA No.1761 of 2007 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Al- Kareem Trade Centre, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. ... Appellant a n d 1. P.Kari Vishwanatham & Ors. … Respondents *** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD MACMA Nos.664 and 1761 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) These two appeals are directed against the order dated 04.10.2006 passed in O.P.No.2821 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judge allowed the O.P. in- part and granted compensation of Rs.12,12,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 2. The appellants in MACMA No.664 of 2007 are the claimants and whereas, the appellant in MACMA No.1761 of 2007 is respondent No.2 in O.P.No.2821 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in O.P.No.2821 of 2004. 3. The claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of P.Raghuprasad. He was an engineering graduate and was aged about 25 years as on 10.02.2004. He along with his friend viz., Chakradhar Rao was proceeding on a motorcycle near Saint Theressa Hospital on 10.02.2004. He was a pillion rider and whereas, his friend Chakradhar Rao was riding the motorcycle. On nearing Saint Theressa Hospital, a lorry bearing No.RJ 02/G 8309 came from behind and dashed the motorcycle, as a result, the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle came under the wheels of the lorry and the pillion rider met with instantaneous death. The claimants filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- According to them, their son Raghuprasad was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and he was a bachelor and therefore, he was contributing his entire earnings to them. The owner and the insurer are liable to pay the compensation. The owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The insurer filed counter disputing the claim of the claimants. The insurer also disputed the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident took place on 10-02-2004 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.RJ 02/G 8309? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 14 documents were marked. On behalf of the insurer, except marking copy of the Insurance Policy as Ex.B1, no ocular evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.12,12,000/- along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and accordingly, allowed the O.P. in part, by order dated 04.10.2006. Assailing the said order, the claimants filed MACMA No.664 of 2007 and whereas, the insurer filed MACMA No.1761 of 2007. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the claimants and learned counsel appearing for the insurer. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal failed to take note of Ex.A14 salary certificate and thereby erred in not taking the salary of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- p.m. According to the learned counsel, if the monthly earnings of the deceased are taken at Rs.15,000/-, the claim of the claimants in-toto deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel refers Para.5(b) of the order impugned in the appeals, wherein Ex.A14 salary certificate has been taken note of. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer submits that the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are his parents and in such a case, half of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as held by the Supreme Court in Sarlaverma v. DTC[1], in which case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be reduced from Rs.12,12,000/- to Rs.9,12,000/-. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the above referred decision that in case of claims by the parents, deduction of one half of the income of the deceased, if the deceased was a bachelor, is required to be made to arrive at his contribution to the family. In the case on hand, the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, half of the income was to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. In such a case, his contribution to the claimants will be Rs.5,000/- p.m. which comes to Rs.60,000/- p.a. By adopting the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency can be arrived at Rs.9,00,000/-. The amounts awarded by the lower Tribunal under the other heads do not require to be interfered with. Ofcourse, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the income of the deceased ought to have taken as Rs.15,000/- p.m. as projected in Ex.A14 salary certificate. Admittedly, the deceased had no stable employment as on the date of his death. Even the company, which offered the employment to the deceased, was a private company and therefore, it could not be treated as his stable employment. The Tribunal is justified in taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs.10,000/ p.m. 8. Accordingly, MACMA No.1761 of 2007 filed by the insurer is partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.12,12,000/ to Rs.9,12,000/ with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and whereas, MACMA No.664 of 2007 filed by the claimants is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J. Date:22th December, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD MACMA Nos.664 and 1761 of 2007 (Common Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) Date:22nd December, 2010 [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121