IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3108 of 2003 Between: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Kurnool .. Appellant AND S. Prameela and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.568 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dated 28-08-2002. The factual background is that S. Radhakrishna going on the motor cycle No.AP02 F561 on 07-05-2000 at about 11 P.M. lost control of the vehicle due to poor visibility near the railway gate at Tadipatri. He fell down and sustained head injury and in spite of treatment at Government hospital, Tadipatri and then at Government General hospital, Kurnool, he died on 08-05-2000. Radhakrishna was aged 29 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as a clerk in Padmavathi oil mill, with which he was maintaining his wife, two children and mother who are the claimants. A compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- was sought for from the owner and insurer of the vehicle. While the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, the insurer put the claimants to strict proof of their allegations and questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It contended that a claim should have been made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act when the deceased died due to his own negligence. The insurer further claimed that Radhakrishna had no valid driving licence and the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the deceased who was not a third party. Hence, the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. Issues were framed by the Tribunal on the manner of the accident, maintainability of the claim and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.A.1, A.2 and B.1 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the independent evidence of P.W.3, who is neither a friend nor a relative of the deceased. The Tribunal concluded that Ex.A.1 FIR in crime No.87 of 2000 and the evidence of P.W.3 prove that the accident occurred due to the bad climate at the time of the accident. The Tribunal also concluded from Ex.B.1 insurance policy that the claim is maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act and it also observed that as the deceased Radhakrishna suffered injuries in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and as the insurance policy covers such a risk, the owner and insurer of the motor cycle were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In assessing the compensation, the age of the deceased was taken as 29 years as specified in Ex.A.2 post-mortem certificate and the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.50/- per day or Rs.1,500/- per month or Rs.18,000/- per annum. After deducting one-third from his income towards personal expenses, the multiplier of 18 was adopted and the total loss of dependency was arrived at a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- . Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium were also granted with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The insurer challenged the said award before this Court contending that the accident occurred due to the own fault of the deceased, due to which the claim is not maintainable, more so when the deceased had no valid driving licence. The accident due to the own negligence of the deceased could not have fastened any liability to the owner or insurer of the vehicle and hence, the award is requested to be reversed. Heard Sri Hari Babu Manne, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel representing the claimants. The proceedings of this Court during the pendency of the appeal show that on 13-11-2003 a learned Judge of this Court passed an order noting that the counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was engaged by the owner of the vehicle on some personal business to drive the vehicle insured, and that he contended that though the policy is comprehensive, only the insured person i.e. the owner of the vehicle is covered by the policy and not any other person engaged by the owner. The learned Judge noted that the decision in Ramashraya Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited[1] was relied on and observed that a perusal of the insurance policy disclosed that any person who was having a valid licence, including the insured is covered under the policy. It was also noted that the owner of the vehicle engaged the deceased who had valid driving licence to drive the vehicle for specific purpose. Therefore, the learned Judge concluded that Ramashraya Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited (1 supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, the learned Judge permitted the claimants to withdraw the amounts deposited to the credit of the matter by the appellant without furnishing any security. This order of the learned Judge, dated 13-11-2003 has become final. Even otherwise, it is seen from the evidence on record that the first information report containing the version immediately after the accident and the independent evidence of P.W.3 probablised that the accident occurred due to the bad climatic conditions. The evidence of P.W.2 showed that the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle sent the deceased Radhakrishna on the vehicle to get some copies of some documents. P.Ws.2 and 3 were not shown to be not independent or to be in any manner interested in the deceased or the claimants and Ex.B.1 policy was opined by the Tribunal to be covering the risk of the deceased. The alternative remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was admittedly not availed by the claimants and as observed by the Tribunal, there was no reason as to why the claim becomes not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to the claim, thus, does not appear to be in doubt. The income of the deceased was taken at the minimum by the Tribunal, which is much less than even the minimum wages payable to labourers under the Minimum Wages Act and in assessing the compensation and applying multiplier 18, the age of the deceased was taken as 29 years as claimed. Though the multiplier is more by one number, it should be remembered that adoption of a multiplier by precedents is only in approximation and not in exactitude. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.17,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium and the overall quantum of compensation or the rate of interest adopted or the proportionate costs granted also do not appear to be excessive in any manner. Therefore, as the orders of this Court, dated 13-11-2003 have already become final and as even otherwise there are no merits in the appeal, the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-04-2011 Svv [1] 2003 (5) Supreme 118