THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3374 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the judgment dated 15.04.2005 in O.P.No.761 of 2001 on the file of the III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal. A claim was made for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased P.Vinod Kumar. According to the claim of the petitioners, on 01.05.2001 at about 1.30 p.m. the deceased along with others were going in Tata Sumo belonging to the 1st respondent in the O.P. and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver it was involved in an accident and the deceased died. The deceased was said to be aged 26 years and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as a teacher. The appellant herein, which is the 2nd respondent with whom the vehicle was insured, filed counter putting the petitioners to strict proof of averments in the petition and denied the nature of accident, earnings of the deceased and its liability to pay compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.3,39,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and if the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and cause of death of the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute. The learned counsel for the appellant has firstly contended that the risk is not covered since the vehicle was hired and it was a violation of the conditions of the policy. The fact that the policy of the vehicle is a comprehensive policy and in view of the guidelines of the I.R.D.A. the occupants of the vehicle are to be treated as third parties covering the risk. Added to that, even the owner of the vehicle was examined and his evidence does not disclose that he has given the vehicle on hire. So also the evidence of the respondents or the counter does not disclose that the vehicle was given on hire. In view of the circumstances, the lower Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. Further it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation determined by the lower Tribunal is not proper. According to him, the lower Tribunal has taken the salary at Rs.3,500/- per month and deducted one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased. Evidently, the deceased was said to be unmarried and consequently the age of the mother of the deceased has to be taken, which as per the petition is 50 years, by applying the multiplier ‘13’ as per the decision in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the total contribution to the family comes to Rs.2,73,000/- (Rs.1,750/- x 12 x 13). Added to that the petitioner will be entitled to non-pecuniary damages at Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.500/- for transport charges. Therefore, the total compensation is fixed at Rs.2,91,000/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety one thousand only). The award of the lower Tribunal is, therefore, modified to the said amount. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 26-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3374 of 2011 DATE: 26-12-2011 MR [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121