THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.3126 of 2007 (Dated : 30-12-2010) Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Divisional Officer, Malakpet, Hyderabad. …Appellant A n d Smt. Pittala Saroja W/o P.Sathaiah and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.3126 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.8.2007 passed in O.P.No.3188 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Chief Judge allowed the O.P in part and granted compensation of Rs.11,05,225/- to the claimants therein. 2. The 2nd respondent in O.P.No.3188 of 2005 is the appellant. Respondents 1 to 5 are the claimants in the said O.P. Claimants 1 and 2 are parents, claimant No.3 is sister and claimants 4 and 5 are brothers of deceased Sridhar. The said Sridhar was employed as an Executive in Call Centre on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. He was aged 25 years as on the date of the accident. On 25.3.2005, he was driving his motor-cycle and his mother was on the pillion seat. He along with his mother was proceeding to Karimnagar. A Maruti car bearing No.AP 12A 2721 owned by T.Upender and insured with the appellant-The New India Assurance Company came in high speed and dashed the motor cycle. As a result, Sridhar fell on road and received injuries to which he succumbed. Therefore, his parents, brothers and sister filed O.P.No.3188 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The owner and the insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants. The owner took the plea that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and it was the rider of the motor cycle, who drove it in rash and negligent manner and thereby, the accident occurred. However, he pleaded that he insured the vehicle and therefore, insurer is liable to pay compensation. 4. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- “1) Whether Pittala Sridhar died on 25/3/05 due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Car No.AP 12 A 2721? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation ? If so against whom ? 3) To what relief ?” 5. On behalf of the claimants, Pw-1 was examined and 11 documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the owner and insurer, neither ocular nor documentary evidence was adduced. 6. 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 Maruti Car and that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,05,225/-. Accordingly, allowed the O.P in part, by order dated 18.8.2007. Hence, this appeal by the insurer. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5- claimants. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-insurer submits that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, his contribution to the family can at most be taken at 50% of his income and in which case, the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is required to be reduced. Except this point, no other point is urged before us by either of the parties. Therefore, the only point that calls for adjudication in this appeal is :- Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal warrants interference ? 9. POINT: Indisputably, the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of his death. As held by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. D.T.C[1], in case of death of a bachelor, 50% of income is required to be taken towards his personal and living expenses. Paras 25 and 26 of the cited judgment need to be noted and they are thus:- “25. We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependants. No evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. The claimants will obviously tend to claim that the deceased was very frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased was a spendthrift, even if he was one. 26. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact, one-third deduction got statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the MV Act”, for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline”. 10. In view of the settled proposition of law, the deceased being unmarried, 50% of his income is to be taken towards his personal and living expenses and 50% of his income as contribution to the family. The tribunal arrived the total annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,34,000/-, in which case, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.67,000/-. Claimant No.1, who is the mother of the deceased is aged 41 years. The proper multiplier as per the decision in Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra) is 14. Thus, applying the same, the total loss of dependency can be arrived at Rs.9,38,000/-. The tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which we are not inclined to interfere. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,40,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part reducing the compensation from Rs.11,05,225/- to Rs.9,40,000/-. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J ________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J Dt.30-12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.3126 of 2007 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) (Dated : 30-12-2010) [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121