THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1501 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 02.01.2003, passed in O.P.No.4 of 2000 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The deceased Prakash @ Seetharam was the cleaner of truck bearing RC No.MH-34-A-2298. On 10.11.1999, when the said truck was loaded with babmboo and was proceeding towards Kagaznagar, after crossing the forest check post at Asifabad, the deceased, who sat in the cabin, due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, fell down from the cabin and received serious injuries to his hands and legs, besides other injuries to his vital organs and subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. At the time of accident, he was unmarried and was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month, besides Rs.50/- per day as batta as cleaner and was contributing the entire amount for the maintenance of his parents i.e., appellant Nos.1 and 2; and sister appellant No.3, and due to his death, they were deprived of his earnings. Hence, they filed the above said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- payable by respondent Nos.2 and 3, being the insurer and owner of the crime vehicle. The third respondent-owner remained ex parte. The second respondent filed counter contending that the deceased was not the cleaner of the truck, but was only an unauthorized passenger travelling in the truck at the time of the accident and hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation and that the compensation claimed is high and exorbitant. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- to the appellants-claimants. Dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of Rs.1,43,000/- for the death of the deceased and fixing the liability only against the owner of the truck, by exonerating the insurance company on the ground that the owner of the truck committed breach of conditions of policy by allowing an unauthorized person to drive the vehicle. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and exonerating the insurance company. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as cleaner. Therefore, as rightly taken by the Tribunal, the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.15,000/- and as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], 1/3rd thereof towards his personal and living expenses has to be deducted, as he has large family consisting of unmarried sister. Therefore, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.10,000/-. As the deceased was unmarried, the appropriate multiplier for the age group of his mother as per Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra) is ‘15’. Therefore, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 15). In addition to that, it would be appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in total, the appellants are entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-. Coming to the aspect of exonerating the liability of the insurance company, the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation as the owner of the offending vehicle breached the conditions of policy by allowing an unauthorized person to drive the vehicle. However, in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Kamala and others[2], the Supreme Court has held that irrespective of the fact that there has been any breach or violation of the policy conditions, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount, but it can recover from the insured the amount so paid to third parties. Therefore, following the same, it is directed that the insurance company shall pay the compensation amount and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. With the modification as above to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date:12.08.2010 VGB [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [2] 2001 ACJ 843